User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 8

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

Strange ref name

AnomieBOT recently changed a reference name from "26" to "renamed_from_26_on_20150725140230" on Hard problem of consciousness in this edit. This broke the reference, giving a cite error. A user restored a previous version of the page here, but the bot made the change again. What's going on here? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. It appears that the problem was with the editor who added the reference as "Names may not be purely numeric". — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjectTagger run for women's health

WikiProject Women's Health is ready for an inaugural WikiProjectTagger run. Project approval can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's Health#Scope. The categories we'd like to include are in the second collapsed box there: 'Final category list for bot run'. We'd like to have the article class auto-assessed. Thank you. gobonobo + c 19:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Replied there. Anomie⚔ 12:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Mad props

The Original Barnstar
To my favourite bot --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

what happened here?

I noted a change by User:AnomieBOT on the history of the Heather Barnett page: [[1]]. It is the edit made 17:45, 29 July 2015. What exactly did AnomieBOT do here? Greg Dahlen (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

As shown in the diff it dated the "Failed verification" tag which had been added 23 minutes before - Arjayay (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
How did it know to do that, Arjayay? Greg Dahlen (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Greg Dahlen - AFAIK it checks all recent edits, recognizes undated tags (Not just citation needed, but all other maintenance templates), and adds the date parameter. - Arjayay (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks at categories. When a tag doesn't have a date, it winds up in one of the categories under Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. Once the date is added that causes the template to put it in a dated subcategory. It mostly identifies the templates needing dating by using the list at WP:AWB/DT. Anomie⚔ 01:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Arjayay. Is AnomieBOT the only bot that does this, I think I may have seen at least one other bot name, B-bot? Any idea why a particular task would go to a particular bot? Greg Dahlen (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

SmackBot (talk · contribs) used to do this, as did Helpful Pixie Bot (talk · contribs). But both are now banned. There may be others which date maintenance tags. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Strange change to named references

I just noticed, that User:AnomieBOT has made this strange change to my page: [[2]]. Effectively for some reason it replaced my nice and compact named reverences with the full body of the reference, which makes my wikitext very cluttered and unreadable. What is the reason for such change? I consider this to be a very negative change.Ev2geny (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This attempted fix removed the "can't have both" comment that was preventing the incorrectly-closed comment a few lines earlier from hiding the rest of the article, leading to this. Since that comment is now fixed, you should be able to revert the bot's edit without ill effect; unfortunately you'll have to do it manually since subsequent edits mean a simple undo won't work.
Also, BTW, it's not your page. Anomie⚔ 15:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I also went ahead and adjusted the bot to not edit pages that end in an unclosed comment when that comment contains a <ref>, to try to avoid such things in the future. Anomie⚔ 15:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Archiving malfunction at WP:ITN/C?

The oldest day section of Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates is not archived. A newest day section is not added. Shall the bot be shut down and then fixed? --George Ho (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Task is stuck. Will restart. Anomie⚔ 22:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Trans-Pacific Partnership

Hi Anomie⚔ . I am working on the references etc on this article and I was adding more content with page number citations from this reference. I wanted to change the ref name from <ref name="2005"> to <ref name="NZ_MFAT_2005">. I checked to see if there was any other citation using the former, and as there was not, I went ahead. The bot saw this as an error. I am working on that para now and didn't want this edit to look like an edit conflict. Can I go ahead now and rename it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanflynn (talk • contribs) 13:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to override whatever the bot might do, if you can fix it in a better way. Without links to the specific diffs in question, I can't speak to the specific situation. Anomie⚔ 02:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Color Contrast issue at WP:BAG/Status

At WP:BAG/Status, blue is used as the background color for a completed trial (hex code #0000ff). When the default black is used in the foreground (hex code #000000), this creates a very difficult to see cell. The contrast ratio, as judged by this tool is only 2.44. This is not WCAG 2 AA or AAA compliant, which is generally desirable as per WP:CONTRAST. Is there any way that color could be changed somewhat? A possible replacement color that is AAA compliant would be #88AAFF, which produces more of a periwinkle (example). I'm not sure if this is a discussion I should take elsewhere, and if so, where it should go. If you think this is worth addressing on a relevant talk page before doing, could you suggest the best location to carry out that discussion? Thanks for your help! ~ RobTalk 18:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Colors munged. Anomie⚔ 02:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

template:+r

We need the bot to stop modifying template:+r. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no way that should be happening in the first place, but I've added some code to double- and triple-check. Anomie⚔ 20:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
After further review, maybe it's coming from the bot trying to resolve 500 redirects at a time when it happened to get logged out (and therefore the limit is 50). Adjusted code to avoid that, too. Anomie⚔ 21:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe fix instead of add?

Check this edit please. Maybe when finding something like "date-May 2015" change it to "date=May 2015"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that "something like" is extremely vague. Is "date-" common enough to be worth checking for? Anomie⚔ 21:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

Why is the bot's maintenance tag dater edit sometimes 20 minutes and sometimes 2 hours after the previous edit? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The bot has two arbitrary edit-count thresholds: under 1000 is considered "untrusted", over 2000 is considered "trusted", and in between is "neutral". Also all bots are "neutral", sysops and reviewers are "trusted", and IPs are "untrusted". If the most recent non-neutral is "untrusted" it waits longer to give human RC patrollers more of a chance to check for vandalism before the bot's edit gets in the way. "Trusted" exists in the hope that those users already checked for vandalism. Anomie⚔ 03:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Is your bot broken?

Your bot is rolling back actual edits and not vandalism. Mug_shot_publishing_industry[3] Mugshots⚔ 08:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mugshots: This is the AnomieBOT edit - all it did was add a missing |date= parameter. Are you thinking of this edit? It was made by Valereee (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No, this one. [4]. but, you're right it was Valereee (talk · contribs) who removed my sourced content. Thanks & sorry to bother you! Mugshots (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mugshots: The edits that you link were made by Dsprc (talk · contribs) - it says so upper right; and they added content, none was removed. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just learning all of this. I finally tracked it down. Here [5] is where Valereee (talk · contribs) deletes two states of legislation etc that I added. Thanks again! Mugshots (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Bot breaking citations.

I've found it that it put randomly a .F2 in some links breaking it. Please test your bot better before releasing it. --Baldusi (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I retract. I see where the bug is. I had made a typo and double slashed a reference that doesn't uses quotations (which I understand is perfectly legal not to quote the ref name). So it looked something like this ''<ref name=foo //>'' and your bot "corrected it" as ''<ref name="foo /"/>'', which the markup reads it as new reference named foo_.2F. I hope you can correct that bug.Baldusi (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Did this bug report included enough information to solve the bug?Baldusi (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced comment (moved from top)

Don't know how to contact you but re Robbie Williams. Needs updating. Wasn't born in stoke on trent well he was but town is actually Burslem. Also Port Vale not in Stoke on Trent that's also in Burslem which is a town within the city of Stoke on Trent I know as I live in town by Robbie so please change as it's wrong. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.99.136 (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your concerns would be better placed on the talk page of the article in question, or on the talk page of a human user involved in the article. Anomie⚔ 10:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable not updating?

User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable last updated at 19.54 yesterday, 27 August - over 25 hours ago - as this page usually has about 42-45 updates/day I suspect something has broken, rather than that nobody has made a semi-protected edit request in the last 25 hours? - Arjayay (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The other two - User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable and User:AnomieBOT/PERTable - are still updating. Arjayay - if you want an up-to-date list, at the top of User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable is a link semi-protected edit requests. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't look into it now since Labs is down. Anomie⚔ 13:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Needed an update for gerrit:223440. Anomie⚔ 15:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Raptor Rocket Engine page, about rescuing removed refs to invalid links

Hi. On 20 August, I removed 3 references which had invalid links. I checked on the following references and found them to be redirected to hobbyspace.com/blog address:

"Long term SpaceX vehicle plans" - [6] -Retrieved 2009-07-13
"Notes: Space Access'11: Thurs. - Afternoon session - Part 2: SpaceX"- [7] RLV and Space Transport News. 2011-04-07. Retrieved 2011-04-08
"SpaceX Raptor LH2/LOX engine" - [8] RLV and Space Transport News. 2011-08-08. Retrieved 2011-08-09.

I followed up with HobbySpace publisher and editor Mr. Clark Lindsey about the links. He told me that old RLV News blog pages are no longer available for free. So Even if we put the new links, only people with a kind of subscription to NewSpaceGlobal.com will be able to access the pages. As a result of this investigation I wrote this explanation to the talk page and removed these 3 references. I put citation templates instead. But during the same day, 20 August; these 3 references are brought back by AnomieBOT. Please remove these references from Raptor rocket engine page. My Regards. --Guyver (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to remove all copies of the named reference, not just the one containing the reference contents. Look for the big red error in the references list when you preview your edit trying to remove the references. Anomie⚔ 23:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I will fix it as you instructed. --Guyver (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Replace the Portal:Current events transclusion with links in ITNCArchiver

On certain browsers such as Firefox, having 8 collapsible boxes makes jumping to sections unreliable. The browser scrolls down to the section before the boxes are collapsed and ends up being in the wrong location once the page has finished changing.

It has been proposed to replace the collapsed transclusions by simple links. I've done a few tests, which seems to fix the issue. Although not many users participated to the discussion, I'm assuming that it's because most of them don't care. I also don't think the P:CE sections are relevant to ITN/C.

Therefore, I'm proposing a change to ITNCArchiver.pm, where body on line 113 changes from: 

"{{cot|[[Portal:Current events/$dt]]}}\n{|{{Portal:Current events/$dt}}\n{{cob}}\n----\n<!-- Insert new nominations below this line -->\n"

to 

"{{right|''[[Portal:Current events/$dt|Current events]], [[Deaths_in_$y#$d|Recent deaths]]''}}\n<!-- Insert new nominations below this line -->\n\n"

In case I made a mistake while checking the variables:

  • $dt should be today's date as "Y B d", appropriate for P:CE's subpages ("2015 September 1");
  • $y should be the current year with 4 digits (2015); and
  • $d should be the current day of the month without leading zeros.

This would give the following markup: 

{{right|''[[Portal:Current events/2015 September 1|Current events]], [[Deaths_in_2015#1|Recent deaths]]''}}\n<!-- Insert new nominations below this line -->\n\n

and would look like this:



I've removed the unnecessary horizontal rule and added a second newline at the end. This is because when the section is empty, the floating links will clip the horizontal rule below the previous day's header.

I've floated it to the right because 1) I don't think it's relevant to ITN/C, so it doesn't need to be prominent; and 2) I'm trying to cut down on vertical space because the page is long enough as it is. I've also added a link to the recent deaths page, because why not. It also makes it a bit clearer that these are links instead of just seeing a weird "Current events" on the right side.

I've linked to this discussion from the ITN/C talk page. Isa (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like keeping any of the collapsed sections is going to give issues on Firefox. Personally, when I encounter this issue I just Ctrl+L then hit Enter to get the browser to re-jump to the anchor. Anomie⚔ 23:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Since this doesn't seem to actually be fixing anything, I'm withdrawing the proposal. Isa (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome template and article space

The bot messed up see this diff. An inexperienced editor, using a source called "The Most Strange Discoverie of the Three Witches of Warboys " by Anon (1593), made a number of edits to Henry Williams (alias Cromwell) which were not formatted correctly. Instead of using <ref>{{harvnb|Anon|1593}}</ref> the editor used <ref>{{Anon|1593}}</ref>. You need to alter your bot so that it does not add the {{Welcome}} template to anything outside the [[user talk:]] namespace so this type of error can not happen again. -- PBS (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT never adds {{Welcome}}. As you noted, it was an inexperienced editor who did that. Anomie⚔ 11:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Bot not consistently removing flag icons

Hi Anomie,

Re. this edit, your bot removed the flag for India, which used the {{flag}} template, but left the one for Pakistan, which uses the {{PAK}} template. Is it too much to ask that the bot handle all flag icons equally? (I mean that as an honest question, though reading it back I can see it might sound snarky.) — kwami (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like User:SiBr4 recently moved a lot of templates like that from Category:Flag templates to Category:Flag template shorthands, so the bot didn't know they existed anymore. I've updated the bot to look in the new category so it will now find them again. (Yeah, that did sound snarky. I forgive you.) Anomie⚔ 11:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I meant, is it too much bother to add the coding for all those templates. They're the reason I don't just use AWB to do this. — kwami (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Archiving at WP:DSI

Hi, AnomieBOT seems to be missing a couple of closed AfDs quite regularly at WP:DSI, not sure why (I checked to see if this was closed properly and can't find anything wrong there), could you check please? —SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It was looking for transclusions of "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foo", not realizing that "WP:Articles for deletion/Foo" was the same thing. Fixed. Anomie⚔ 17:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, the page spans fewer mouse scrolls now! —SpacemanSpiff 19:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed

Hi I recently requested for citation for Rabindranath Tagore & Bengalis. You edited both- thank you. Few hours ago though an editor dismissed our idea of requesting for citation.

I think it's a good thing that we seek for more citation not less to make our Wikipedia more reliable and scholarly.

What's your idea on this? If you think along the same line how can we explain other editors about the necessity of more citation?

I appreciate your cooperation. Thanks. Shoshanko (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is a computer program that, among other things, adds dates to various maintenance tags. As a computer program, it has no ideas. Anomie⚔ 12:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2,015

In these three edits:- [9] - [10] - [11] - when adding the date to a citation needed template AnomieBOT added Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2,015 to the articles as well.
This is a non-existant category - hence the redlink - and is not a standard category in the article's edit page, so cannot simply be deleted (I suspect it is a hidden category, but don't know how to find/delete those).
In all 3 cases this occurred after a previous CN tag date, leading to earlier bad categories, Category:Articles with unsourced statements from April 2,013 or Category:Articles with unsourced statements from August 2,014 had been deleted - twice deliberately, to try and overcome the problem, and once accidentally, as part of another edit.
I have just tried again at Chitral - in case this problem had been resolved - but along with dating the CN tag, AnomieBOT has added Category:Articles with unsourced statements from September 2,015 to the bottom of that page.
How can these "bad categories" be stopped from appearing in the three current articles? - and presumably several more dates in other, as yet unlocated, articles ? - Arjayay (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that these fields that format the numbers with commas may not contain maintenance templates. Editors should use the corresponding field that's intended for citations, such as |population_footnotes= and |area_footnote=. Note also that trying to code all these parameter correspondences into AnomieBOT would probably be a losing battle. Anomie⚔ 20:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I have no idea what you are trying to say. Editors are not adding these categories - the bot is, and they are not categories that appear in the edit page, so cannot be deleted. I repeat my question "How can these "bad categories" be stopped from appearing" ? - Arjayay (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Editors are putting the maintenance templates into infobox fields that do not support such templates. Put the maintenance templates in the correct infobox fields instead (the same fields that would be used for the references).
The bot isn't adding any categories either, it's just applying the required date parameter to the maintenance templates that human editors have added. Anomie⚔ 22:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect "speedy" tag

AnomieBOT incorrectly tagged National Postcard Week as having been speedied, while it was actually relisted twice and deleted due to poor content. --Slashme (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The closure at the top of the AfD you link says "The result was speedy delete", which is what AnomieBOT copies. Anomie⚔ 22:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ref naming error

In this edit, AnomieBOT removed this (see near the bottom of the diff):

ref name=""rtbookreviews2006

It would be helpful to instead have it fix the typo by moving the ref name inside the quotes like this:

ref name="rtbookreviews2006"

This would be a nice fix if it could be implemented as I'm sure there are plenty of instances like this. Thanks for the hard work! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at Lac-Mégantic rail disaster

The Original Barnstar
For keeping track of and rescuing refs as I split Lac-Mégantic rail disaster - Thank you! -- Badger151 (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

TagDater MIA?

I was lazy and didn't date a {{cn}}, but you weren't as quick as usual to tag it. So I checked and see the task is "job missing". Does your human need to intervene? Come to that, does anyone get an alert when that happens? David Brooks (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Restarted. No alert, but I check it at least every weekday morning. Anomie⚔ 01:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect peacock tag?

I just visited the Freedom of religion article and noticed the 'Peacock term' tag on the word 'fundamental' in the sentence "The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion ... is also a fundamental part of religious freedom...". I think the tag was added by this bot. As I understand it, 'fundamental' is being used here in its literal sense, to describe an attribute of religious freedom which is required (i.e. if it's missing, then it's not religious freedom). As a general reader, I found the word helpful. In any case, I don't think it qualifies as a peacock term as described by the manual of style.

I was going to correct it myself on the page, but I'm not sure about the status of bot corrections - and whether bots simply reinstate their edits. In any case, if I'm right and the bot is being over-enthusiastic, then other pages may have been affected. Phil Smith (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the edit notice for this page, AnomieBOT does not add maintenance tags to articles. It only dates tags added by other editors. In this case the tag was added by Mr. Guye in this edit. Anomie⚔ 01:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification (and apologies for missing the edit notice). I'll go ahead and correct it. Phil Smith (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I was not sure how to date the tag.--Crouchbk (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT problem

1) The BOT edited a page (William Pitt (1803 ship)) while I was still working on it. 2) It tried to remove references from templates. I overrode the BOT.Acad Ronin (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you. FemtoTaz (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
For always cleaning up after me when I nuke articles and make them better. Buffaboy talk 00:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
This bot is AMAZINGLY programmed! I just CANNOT believe that this is nearly flawless and has made many edits that no bot would do. I would, if I had bot rights, make a bot to regularly give an Original Barnstar to a random person once every 24 hours. OmegaBuddy13 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thankyou for your edits in this article. International Editor Shah (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Odd bot-deletion

Anomie, please have a look at this why your bot deleted Wikipedia:RCAPS (which I restored). Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Because the wikitext was #REDIRECT[[#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#Capitalization differences]]. Anomie⚔ 00:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is hiding valid text with needed ref fix

Hello, this page [[Michael Laucke]] has a broken named ref (ref name=":13") but AnomieBOT is wrapping a new ref around some needed body text when it fixes the ref. Here is the diff. The ref is definitely broken, but the BOT is not fixing it properly. Just so you know. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The bot seems to be doing a decent job in that edit. Your "fix" a few edits earlier seems to have broken things. Anomie⚔ 00:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of upcoming merge of WP:FFD and WP:NFCR into a new forum called Wikipedia:Files for discussion

@Anomie: There has been consensus to move Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Part of this consensus includes merging the functionality of Wikipedia:Non-free content review into this page. Consensus for this change can be found here (on WP:VPPROP). (This notice has been placed here instead of making an immediate change; this change directly affects AnomieBOT since it maintains Wikipedia:Files for deletion.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll have to find time to look at exactly what needs changing. Anomie⚔ 22:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Anomie: I understand that reprogramming a bot's task takes time, but in the meantime, I was wondering if you may be able to answer this question so I can start doing some stuff behind the scenes without worry: If I were to rename Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion (the basepage, not discussing the daily subpages right now), will AnomieBOT place the daily entry transclusions on Wikipedia:Files for discussion or will it overwrite the leftover redirect at Wikipedia:Files for deletion? Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
At a glance, it looks like the bot will follow redirects if they exist. But it will still create the daily pages as subpages of Wikipedia:Files for deletion, even if that is a redirect. Anomie⚔ 22:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Anomie: I assumed the latter (subpages) would still be the case until the bot is updated (given that there is no way to redirect from redirects that do not exist); at the present time, that's okay. That change will be more necessary around the time that the name of the forum needs to be updated in Twinkle, and we're not there just yet. I'll try to keep you posted here with the status on that, but if I fail to do so, more information can be found in the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#Discussion regarding updating FFD to accommodate the NFCR merge. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Anomie: Twinkle has now been updated per my previous comment; the "WP:NFCR merge to WP:FFD" process is now ready for AnomieBOT to start naming the daily subpages "Files for discussion" instead of "Files for deletion". (Also, pinging This, that and the other since the bot's update and Twinkle update for "Files for deletion" to be renamed "Files for discussion" will best have to happen around the same time to avoid Twinkle posting new requests on the wrong page.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Steel1943: Like AnomieBOT, Twinkle follows redirects in its FFD process, so there will be no problem if redirects from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/DATE to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/DATE are set up for a few days until Twinkle is updated. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @This, that and the other: I understand that fully, which is why I personally would rather AnomieBOT first be updated to make the subpages titled "Files for discussion" when created. If Twinkle gets updated before the bot, then a human editor will have to move every subpage that AnomieBOT creates before the day starts in UTC, which could be rather tedious. But, if someone is up for the task... Steel1943 (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943 and This, that and the other: AnomieBOT will start creating pages under "Files for discussion" starting with the page for November 4. Pages for November 3 and earlier should not be moved. AnomieBOT will also create redirects from the "Files for deletion" names to the new names for two weeks, with the last such redirect being for November 17. Sometime around November 11, someone should update the parser functions at WP:FFD#Recent nominations (and the bit above for "approaching conclusion") to point to the "discussion" name. Anomie⚔ 14:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

900 byte deletion

Just gotta love how you summarize a 900 byte deletion as "adding x". You are the best at what you do. Anarchangel (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Just gotta love how you complain about something but don't give a link to the diff you're complaining about. Anomie⚔ 13:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My revision has been removed by bot

There were some updates made on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gopalganj,_Bihar&diff=670576801&oldid=665744153 which were deleted by the bot a few days earlier.

The full review is available on the link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gopalganj,_Bihar&diff=670576801&oldid=665744153

Please review it again and make update as the given information by me was updated as per the date 2011 but the current information is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anujsharma9196 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Use Australian English from November 2015

This supposedly hidden category is appearing as a regular category on articles. See this diff. Thanks Kerry (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Category needed a null edit to pick up the "hidden" flag. Probably the same underlying cause as the various other data-isn't-updating issues that have been reported recently. Anomie⚔ 14:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

References named "colon + number"

Hi! I noticed this edit where the orphan reference fixer found four references with the same name, ":0". If it had found only one, would it have copied the reference into the broken article? Thanks to the Visual Editor, so many articles have references named "colon + number" that I think they should be excluded from this part of the bot's logic. If article A is missing the reference ":0" and article B has a reference named ":0", it's not all that likely that article B's reference is good for article A. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks, VE, for using such uncreative reference names. Will update the bot momentarily. Anomie⚔ 14:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


LocalSaver does not meet general notability guideline.

LocalSaver has been tagged with general notability guideline issue by AnomieBOT. I am trying to understand the reason for the tagging so that I could help in improving this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LocalSaver.com

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.51.2 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Look again at the history of the article. AnomieBOT, a computer program, only added "date=November 2015" to the tag. The tag was placed by a human editor, User:Mean as custard, in the previous edit. To understand the tag I suggest you follow some of the blue-linked phrases that it displays. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

IFDCloser: Template:Ffd top is broken - Fixed

Help! The template {{ffd top}} contains unknown parameters. To avoid confusion, I'm not going to process any FFDs 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⚡ 00:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Anomie: Nothing that I can think of at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rename IFDCloser task to FFDCloser

The pages User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/IFDCloser.pm and User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/IFDCloser should be moved to User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/FFDCloser.pm and User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/FFDCloser respectively. Also, the edit summary for bot edits relating to Wikipedia:Files for discussion should have "FFDCloser" in the link rather than "IFDCloser". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It would also require changing the bot code. Probably not worth the trouble, IMO. Anomie⚔ 02:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT removed text

Please {{ping}} me with a reply. Why did AnomieBOT remove text in this diff? I understand the part about dating the maintenance tag. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Checkingfax: Your diff link spans three edits, two by an IP and then one by the bot. The bot's edit was just this. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Entries that are not removed

The present entry, Template:Userspace draft (request), was removed as a non-ER by John of Reading at 12:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC). The log presents as having been updated at 17:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC). And yet, the entry has not been removed. I'd like to understand why? Be prosperous! Paine  18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

As of the 18:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC) update, the entry has been removed. Would still like to know why it took so long to remove it. Are there some entries that must be removed manually? If so, then why?  Paine  18:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: My guess would be delay in the category update. Anomie⚔ 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, Anomie⚔, I thought it was because the ER was not actually closed with a "yes". Does AnomieBOT check to see if an ER has just been erased as it was in this case?  Paine  02:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: AnomieBOT scans pages in the categories corresponding with various edit request types (e.g. Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests) for talk pages having edit requests, and checks for special urn links in those talk pages' external links to identify the page for which an edit is being requested. It doesn't actually look for the edit request template at all, to avoid having to mess with trying to detect whether a request-template is marked as "closed" or not. Anomie⚔ 16:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 Thank you very much!  Paine 

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

The page Template:Primary sources 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⚡ 00:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Smile 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. 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⚡ 00:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

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)

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 [17], 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)

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)

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)

A cookie for your owner!

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)

Tagging at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files

[18] 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)

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

Problem with {{unsigned}}?

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

@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)
OK well if it's not a problem, it's not a problem.  pablo 14:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

SmackBot

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

And you're posting this here because? Anomie⚔ 00:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@Anomie: Your bot also dates maintenance tags, which indeed was formerly done by SmackBot. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
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)

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)

(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)
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)
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)
I've updated the bot so it shouldn't complain anymore if that edit is redone. Anomie⚔ 00:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

 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)

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

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)

(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)
@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)

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)

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)

Date not added to broken link template

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

(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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: 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)

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)

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)
Here are the details, but I changed my mind while writing this. See below.
  1. 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.
  2. 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)

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [19] 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)

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:

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)

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)

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)

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 "[dated info]" 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)

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)

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.[20] 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 [[21]] 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. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response 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)

Hi, AnomieBOT

Can you please guide me by telling me how to fix "better source needed" in kali page? Do I have to change the contents and sources ? Or can I simply change the sources and remove flag "better source needed"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UserK (talk • contribs) 08:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@UserK: AnomieBOT is an automated program that just added a date to those tags. The "better source needed" tag was added by User:First Light. so you should ask at their talk page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

Closing discussions for moved templates and files

AnonieBOT closes discussions for nonexistent templates and files as in Special:Diff/726387593, where the templates were already nonexistent rather than recently deleted; and Special:Diff/726379538, where File:Grillapology.jpg was recently deleted. Suppose that a template or file page no longer exists due to someone going to Special:MovePage and unchecking the "Leave a redirect behind" box so that the move log entry will say either "without leaving a redirect" or "over a redirect without leaving a redirect". In this case, will AnomieBOT close the discussion for the moved template or file? If so, what result will the bot give? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

GeoffreyT2000, this has happened a couple of times on FFD. The bot closes the request as 'the file does not exist' if you choose to suppress the redirect, if I remember correctly.
If you move with redirect but then quickly break the redirect, then the bot may close it as 'wrong forum'. See Special:Diff/721444380 for an example of this. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello bot. Shut up from my talkpage. Dont go on a collision course with me. Dont do idiot things.Lukasz - Discussion 10:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The community has decided that {{welcome}} should always be substituted; the bot simply enforces this, and edit warring with the bot is likely to get you nowhere. If you really insist on having the template unsubsted on your own talk page, add it as {{welcome|nosubst=1}} to instruct the bot that this instance should not be substituted, as explained in the documentation page linked from the bot's edit summary. Note that doing this on others' pages would likely be considered disruptive. Anomie⚔ 13:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

2011-12 North American winter

Could you avoid creating redirects with alternative dashes if the redirect you create will be a cross-namespace redirect? Cross-namespace redirects are often inappropriate, so it may be better to log such situations on a page instead for human evaluation. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I'll have the bot skip creating redirects that would be eligible for WP:CSD#R2. I don't think I'll bother to log them, it's unlikely we'll have an exception that contains an en-dash. Anomie⚔ 02:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

2011-12 North American winter

Could you avoid creating redirects with alternative dashes if the redirect you create will be a cross-namespace redirect? Cross-namespace redirects are often inappropriate, so it may be better to log such situations on a page instead for human evaluation. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I'll have the bot skip creating redirects that would be eligible for WP:CSD#R2. I don't think I'll bother to log them, it's unlikely we'll have an exception that contains an en-dash. Anomie⚔ 02:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Bot edit

This edit was vandalism [22]

When you bot follows it with this edit [23]

It hides the vandalism. Anything we can do to fix this issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cobi is this something your ClueBot could help with? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The note in this page's header, in the box that begins "Regarding the OrphanReferenceFixer and TagDater, please note", directly addresses this comment in the first bullet. In this case I note it waited a good bit more than 10 minutes. Anomie⚔ 01:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

File-WikiProject Medicine - Dermatology task force - Articles created.svg

Please update the text you add in File:File-WikiProject Medicine - Dermatology task force - Articles created.svg. The bots tag is not needed anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board/ZHCOTM/current moved

Just wanted to post that I have moved page Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board/ZHCOTM/current to Wikipedia:WikiProject China/ZHCOTM/current. According to the page's history, AnomieBOT performs some sort of task on the page, but if I recall, AnomieBOT's edits follow redirects, so I'm not sure if any updates are necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

In this case AnomieBOT doesn't care about the page title at all, it's just looking for transclusions of {{User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage}}. Anomie⚔ 13:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Steel1943 and Anomie: It was actually necessary to update the moved page due to the |this page = {{subst:FULLLPAGENAME}} feature of {{User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage}}. Pppery (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on changes made to pages

Hi,

Neha pendse's page had incorrect info on her television details. She is not playing any role in 'Ghup Chupp' serial on Sab TV. I have deleted the entry on her wiki page and also on 'Ghup Chupp' wiki page. The actress was not happy to see incorrect info about her on the pages. So could you please confirm me that these details which I have removed from both pages are approved by wiki .?

Thanks, Janet Janetdianad (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is an automated program that performs tasks that do not require human intelligence. You should find human editors of that article to ask. Anomie⚔ 17:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about EnDashRedirectCreator

Does the bot create redirects for other redirects?

There is a (newly created) redirect Ethiopia–Djibouti relations that points to Djibouti–Ethiopia relations. I noticed Djibouti-Ethiopia relations was created by the bot, but will Ethiopia-Djibouti relations be created (and of course point to Djibouti–Ethiopia relations)? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 05:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, the answer appears to be "yes it will". Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:30, 20 July 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)

Conflict between 2 tasks

There is a conflict between 2 tasks. If a template such as Template:2016–17 Danish Superliga Regular Season table whose title contains an en dash (A–B) has a talk page as well as a /doc, /sandbox, or /testcases subpage; Template talk:A-B/doc, Template talk:A-B/sandbox, or Template talk:A-B/testcases can be created with either TemplateTalkRedirectCreator or EnDashRedirectCreator. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

... So? Anomie⚔ 21:34, 30 July 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)

Conflict between 2 tasks

There is a conflict between 2 tasks. If a template such as Template:2016–17 Danish Superliga Regular Season table whose title contains an en dash (A–B) has a talk page as well as a /doc, /sandbox, or /testcases subpage; Template talk:A-B/doc, Template talk:A-B/sandbox, or Template talk:A-B/testcases can be created with either TemplateTalkRedirectCreator or EnDashRedirectCreator. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

... So? Anomie⚔ 21:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request lists suggestion

Hello AnomieBOT,

I think it could be useful to add &redirect=no to the links to articles in the protected edit request lists. This way if someone follows it, they wont have to backtrack if it's a redirect. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request lists suggestion

Hello AnomieBOT,

I think it could be useful to add &redirect=no to the links to articles in the protected edit request lists. This way if someone follows it, they wont have to backtrack if it's a redirect. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Bot stopped

Just a heads-up that AnomieBot stopped running yesterday evening (last edit 19:05 Thursday 04 August 2016 (UTC)), for no reason that is obviously apparent. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Anomie: Making sure you've seen this, as there's been no change in the last 12 hours. I've done the yesterday's and today's jobs at WP:ITN/C on the bot's behalf but haven't checked what else it should be doing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I had a bug in my OAuth code: it was passing a floating-point value rather than an integer for the oauth_timestamp parameter, and gerrit:221863 had a side effect that the different backend on WMF wikis chokes if given a non-integer. Bot updated and seems to be running correctly now. Sorry for the delay in fixing it, I was without Internet access since Friday. Anomie⚔ 19:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

assassination of Martin Luther King

Can you rescue some sources for the assassination of Martin Luther King article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.103.11 (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Dated twice

here. The date-August should have been altered to date=August. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

IMO numbers

At least up to February, AnomieBOT was creating IMO redirects and adding {{R from IMO number}} to them without a sort key. See this edit where I added the sort key in the unnamed parameter of the rcat. If possible, it would be an improvement to include the sort key, which is the IMO number given by the redirect title without the "IMO" prefix. I have fixed all of these in the category, which were sorted under "I" for IMO (the {{PAGENAME}} default), and they are now sorted correctly (by number). Thank you, Anomie, for your counsel on this!  Rules of enpagement Paine  17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not just use {{replace|{{PAGENAME}}|IMO |}} to default the sortkey to the correct value? Anomie⚔ 22:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay then, never mind, because that works beautifully! And I may be able to use the Replace template in other rcats. Thank you very much for your instruction!  Rules of enpagement Paine  08:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Further info:

The following redirect category templates have been updated with the {{Replace}} template and will automatically sort their redirects...

Thank you once again, Anomie⚔, and let me know if there is anything I can ever do for you!  Rules of enpagement Paine  09:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Asieh Amini

Hello AnomieBOT,

as I have been writing my first articles in English on WP in the last two weeks I wanted to know what the issue with the tone is on the articles of Asieh Amini. I think there is nothing unneutral in it or sensationalizing. So I can't tell what the problem is. Could you help me by telling me what needs to be changed? --EarlyspatzTalk 09:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Earlyspatz: As shown in the notices displayed when you posted the above, "AnomieBOT is not a human editor. It is a computer program (a bot) that makes repetitive edits that would be extremely tedious for a human to do manually. If you are here because you think AnomieBOT added [a] maintenance tag to an article, please check again. AnomieBOT only added the current date to a maintenance tag added by another editor in a previous edit." I guess you are thinking of this edit - notice that the only change was the addition of |date=August 2016 to a {{Tone}} that was already present. That was added in this edit, so it is Manxruler (talk · contribs) that you should be asking. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the explaination. I guess you can recognize that by the ending BOT. I'm still not sure about the tone issues. I guess it concerns difficult content, that I think is important. And I wouldn't know how to express in a different way.--EarlyspatzTalk 15:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

oii

deii
oii Muhamad Dinie (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

removing expired templates: {{Show by date}}

Why did you remove part of template, it is not expired it's not limited in time? – Vilnisr T | C 09:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Vilnisr: Which article was this? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It was my user page – Vilnisr T | C 12:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you mean this edit. It's because the dates are past. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
but there is no year, and that's the point of template, this is anual template it can't expire – Vilnisr T | C 18:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
No, the way that {{show by date}} is written, if the year is omitted, the current year is assumed - both 26 June 2016 and 30 June 2016 are some weeks ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Not really, my template was created to activate/show specific text every year, by using {{show by date}} template without a year i activate some text for couple of days every year, but the rest of the year it stays inactive, that's the idea. This template was created to honor and remember persons, events, specific dates like 9/11. Template can be removed if wikipedia policy is against such "memorial templates", but there is no problem with dates or year as this template become active every year, it's a simple loop. P.S. my template is more complex as original template to show and later hide text, that's why it can't expire, it simply stay inactive till next year – Vilnisr T | C 06:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Followed up separately at User talk:Vilnisr with a solution. No need for AnomieBOT to follow up. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

PERTable, etc not updating

User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable (for example) is about two hours behind the live category as of this point. There appears to be no changes to User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/PERTableUpdater, so I'm unsure what's preventing AnomieBOT to update the PERTable pages. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've attempted a shutoff and restart to no avail. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The shutoff and restart had no chance of doing anything. The only thing it does is signal the bot to not make its edit, it's not actually restarting the process or anything. I'll try actually restarting it and see if that works. Anomie⚔ 13:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Same issue is also affecting User:AnomieBOT/PERTable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Anita Reddy

Hi mate, you have placed a notability tag on Anita Reddy which I believe is irrelevant. Reddy is a recipient of a major award, Padma Shri (the fourth highest India civilian honor) and is notable per WP:ANYBIO. Six of the thirteen citations are also reliable references. I am removing the tag; you may please reinstate it if you still feel it is required. In such case, a small note here would do well. Cheers !!--jojo@nthony (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tachs: As shown in the notices displayed when you posted the above, "AnomieBOT is not a human editor. It is a computer program (a bot) that makes repetitive edits that would be extremely tedious for a human to do manually. If you are here because you think AnomieBOT added [a] maintenance tag to an article, please check again." I guess you are thinking of this edit - notice that the only change was the removal of some spaces and an incorrectly-positioned comma within a {{Notability}} that was already present. That was added in this edit, so it is Didgeridoo1234 (talk · contribs) that you should be asking. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, it's my mistake. I missed it completely. Sorry mate !!--jojo@nthony (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Bot for AfD page moves

Hi Anomie, I noticed that your bot updates FfD listings when the file name changes (and leaves a comment)—very helpful! Has there been any discussion in bringing such a bot to AfD too? Renames during AfD tend to be a mess and the discussions end up resting at the wrong disambiguation location because it's too much of a hassle to update the AfD code. Is this something your bot can do? czar 15:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Dim Days of Dolor

Hi my friend. Excuse me, but I don't understand the observation you made to my article. The sources are clear and concrete, no broken links anywhere. Can you explain me?. to improve. Thank you. --Apega71 (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Apega71: If you are here because you think AnomieBOT added {{citation needed}} or another maintenance tag to an article, please check again. AnomieBOT only added the current date to a maintenance tag added by another editor in a previous edit. In this case the templates were added by Jax 0677. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Kitten from the bin

Kitten for Robot
Thank you for salvaging that which was thrown out! Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 23:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Waterboyy (2015 Thai movie)

Hi AnomieBot

Noticed that the page that i helped created and edited has been deleted, i hope that you could help to re-instate the page back, as this is a Thai movie, and from time to time, i will be doing some editing for the page. Hope to hear good news from you. Evan Weinstein | Talk 01:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Evan Weinstein: AnomieBOT is a bot and will not respond to your request. Waterboyy (2015 Thai movie) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was moved to Waterboyy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Ribbet32 on 10 August 2016. It was then deleted on 6 September 2016 by DragonflySixtyseven. AnomieBOT deleted the broken redirect on 7 September 2016 at the former title left behind after the latter was deleted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Thank you for the information, may i ask can you help to re-instate the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan Weinstein (talk • contribs) 05:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Evan Weinstein: I am not an admin, so I cannot (un)delete pages. You should ask the deleting admin, DragonflySixtyseven. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Internetquelle has too many transclusions - Fixed

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. 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⚡ 15:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Bot doc bug

May I point out that the documentation for the AccidentalLangLinkFixer task still refers to the old category name, which has now been renamed and is a redirect. Pppery 20:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You may. I'll try to remember to fix that next time I update it. Anomie⚔ 20:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnomieBOT/Archive_8&oldid=1146687538"