User talk:Helpful Pixie Bot/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Posts from SmackBot's talk page. Any further discussion should go on my talk page as I don't watch this page.

In most cases I've answered the editor on their talk page as User:Rich Farmbrough. Rich Farmbrough 17:23 21 July 2009 (UTC).


Why does SmackBot add {{DEFAULTSORT}} to (1) non-people pages (2) whose current article name is exactly the same as what it's putting into the template?

It added this template to Multiple Chemical Sensitivity two weeks ago, and -- since the page was incorrectly capitalized then, and has since been moved to the proper sentence case -- now it's wrong as well as being redundant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough 17:23 21 July 2009 (UTC).

English Civil War[edit]

Just because a template has been moved there is no need to change every {{Fact}} to {{Citation needed}} it makes big changes to article diffs like English Civil War for no visual affect for the reader of the article. --PBS (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

{{coord missing}}[edit]

Could you please stop SmackBot from dating {{coord missing}} tags? It interferes with my bot's workflow, to no apparent advantage. -- The Anome (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot problem[edit]

No date template added in this edit; nor this one. Is this edit, there's no ISO formatted date. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Helpful Pixie Bot. You have new messages at SmackBot's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry about placing the citations box in the wrong place. Kentucky1333 (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


Is there any chance this bot could pass by situations like this? Only admins are supposed to edit the page when that template is on there.--Rockfang (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


Stopped because it is moving the maintenance tags, which it should not be doing. Example = Lviv--Toddy1 (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange edit summary[edit]

Hi Rich. SmackBot is currently tagging all edits (like this one) with an edit summary "Thou shalt not test thy bot" which seems a bit mysterious. (Is it perhaps a reference to the test templates Smackbot removed from Point Valid, which has inadvertently been continued for subsequent edits?). Regards DH85868993 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


On the article San_Mateo_Highlands the 'smackbot' changed phrases like "night of July 3rd" to "night of July 3" which is rather awkward, especially at this part of the article where we are talking about the July 4th holiday, which is never the July 4 holiday.

Also, I find the name 'SmackBot' to be particularly offensive. It is as though you are smacking me around. That may not be the intent of what you wish to communicate, but that is definitely the way it comes across. Might I suggest 'DateBot' or something that better describes what the bot is doing.


What is the justification for removing lifetime templates? Ian Cairns (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I hope you don't mind but I am of the opinion that this bot is making bad edits. I don't mean to be rude, but maybe it'd be best if you would see for yourself.

Whenever your bot changes "{{fact}}" to "{{citation needed}}" with a date, it doesn't delete the date provide already with the "{{fact}}" template. Thus "{{Citation needed|September 2009|date=September 2009}}" is what's left on the link above.

If I am mistaking, then please accept my apology and know that I was just providing you with feedback with the best intentions.

Odd error[edit]

SmackBot replaced Austrian legislative election, 2008 with Scouting in New York in this edit. -Rrius (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

☑Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 07:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC).


Hi. Please can you link me to the consensus that states Lifetime shouldn't be used? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot is replacing lifetime with old defaultsort and individual categories. (I) Only use defaultsort when last name or dob is missing.--Auric (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


Bot is replacing lifetime with old defaultsort and individual categories. (I) Only use defaultsort when last name or dob is missing. [1] --Auric (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

STOP -- Do Not Replace Lifetime With DEFAULTSORT[edit]

Do not replace lifetime with DEFAULTSORT. I will stop this bot everytime I find you have done so.

JimCubb (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)



the bot is apparently changing Lifetime into DEFAULTSORT: + Category: births

huh? Pohick2 (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


Why are you changing Lifetime to DEFAULTSORT e.g. George Fleetwood (regicide), I don't believe there is any consensus for these wholesale changes. Martin451 (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


The first supplied reference in the BEV section is self publicized and violates WP Policy. The second lists figures but makes no conclusions to support the statement that BEV are more efficient on a well to wheel basis.

POV for Notable former players.[edit]

Spotted your recent fix to the Rushden & Diamonds article in the notable former players section. There is an on going debate about what should constitute clear criteria for these kind of sections on Football(Soccer) articles at WT:FOOTY since currently no clear criteria exist across the board and at the moment means its down to the various POVs of various editors, especially when some of them know very little about the specific club/area of discussion in question. That is not a criticism, but an observation that needs addressing.--MadDogRDFC (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


The bot removed a link from List of Popotan episodes. While I had marked the link as dead, it is currently being blocked by a bot by the owner (so its not truely dead). Also it did not remove another archive link from a previous one it added the date to the dead link template to, only the latter. I'm stopping it because these links can be hard to retrieve if someone isn't watching the page when the bot comes by.Jinnai 02:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


don't go changing infobox settlement articles until there is consensus, I got this from SmackBot changing a French one


I told you, please stop the bot until we have consensus on the changes it is making. I have seen it on my watchlist on French, Hungarian and Spanish articles. Can we get consesus please before it makes these changes. Thanks SimonTrew (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


Incompatability with new cite.php regime[edit]

See this edit, where Smackbot added a second {{reflist}}, thereby breaking all the references on the page. Needs updating to accommodate list-defined references. Cheers,  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Blank space removal[edit]

Stop spamming up the history of articles and slowing down Wikipedia and using up hard disk space with your bot pointlessly removing a single line of blank space from articles.--Otterathome (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

2008 Election[edit]

Hey. I need a third party opinion on the article regarding the presidential election in California. Please go on the talk page on the last section and share your opinion. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


I might have got this wrong, but I think it was you who removed my edit of the criticism of respected historians of American motives for getting involved with a war with Spain. I note that you don't just amend them and add edits making the same points elsewhere, but have removed my contribution wholesale, even though there is nothing controversial about what I have added.

If you did originally remove it, could you tell me why? Pfgpowell (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Pointless edits[edit]

Why is the bot making pointless edits such as the only edit to a page is the upper casing of a template name as per here? Surely the bot should only make a change to a page if there is something of significance that has changed and not trivial changes that are of no consequence. For using AWB we are warned to Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits and this should apply to the bot as well. Keith D (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

bug. fixed. autp.


Smackbot has made several reference citation changes that broke the linking on the page U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks in the last week or so. I recall Smackbot doing something similar in the past, but was not aware of this procedure. Please stop the bot.

I reverted the bot changes already. See page history for link above.

Parserpractice (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Autp. Fixed page. Investigating. Rich Farmbrough 01:30 18 October 2009 (UTC).

STOP - issue with multiple redundant references with different unique references on same domain[edit]

Smackbot broke the references on OBDuino, by replacing all references to with references to

First of all, I should note that SmackBot was cleaning up my mess and mostly got it right!

However, there were two sets of redundant references with the same domain but different paths. Smackbot should have used 2 different names, but it used the same name for both. Fixed by changing the names assigned by smackbot.

I suspect this will be an issue whenever there are multiple redundant references to the same domain, but multiple unique references within the set of all redundant links to that domain. Hbachus (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Autp. Rich Farmbrough 14:47 18 October 2009 (UTC).


The bot is currently changing lower case (German) 'von' name prefixes to Von (upper case V). This is incorrect. Can you possible undo the edits? An example is Max von Schillings which I have reverted. We should also check 'de' (French) and similar words used in names in other languages. Thank you. --Kleinzach 05:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now checked and I've only found one other instance: Lucy van Dael. It seems only defsorts are affected, so maybe no great problem? Thanks. --Kleinzach 07:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
☑Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough 12:05 19 October 2009 (UTC).

Smackbot and reordering refs[edit]

Re: [2]

I had the refs on Hyperoperation in alphabetical order so they'd be easier to find. Smackbot came through and reordered them. Is there a good reason for this? If there's an agreed upon convention, that's fine, but I think alphabetical would be better and the best order might depend article to article. Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


Do you take Sundays off? I wasn't aware that bots had any off days! Your last entry listed is for the Catholic Church, and that was done on a Saturday. I'm Catholic too, though I didn't take the day off from editing. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition of duplicate template parameters[edit]

SmackBot has added duplicate "date" parameters to the "Cite web" and "Dead link" templates here. Not a big deal but it could become an issue if it's starting to do that everywhere. Laurent (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot Problem?[edit]

Last night two links to articles were added to <James Reiss> to prevent it from being an orphan. This morning both links have been removed. My guess: SmackBot removed the links. Reissja (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Stopped by mistake[edit]

I'm sorry about the false alarm: I misinterpreted a page's history, and ascribed another editor's error to your bot. Please carry on, and accept my apologies. -- The Anome (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


In Cucuteni-Trypillian culture after renaming two references the bot is not changing the reference name, it becames blocked on Reference name; ref name="ReferenceB"; so a lot of references are deleted and changed to the first reference. Tha bot work for reference ref name="ReferenceA", it strat rename after that almoust alll references ref name="ReferenceB", still some references are renamed correctly if the reference start with a html link.CristianChirita (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Same thing at anatta. Mitsube (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot problems[edit]

As per [3] I have stopped the bot. Mitsube (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


You broke the command on Zenity.

It is getting in the way[edit]

Again, smackbot gets in the way of good faith edits. And you have not had the courtesy to respond to me on several requests. Until you respond to me, Rich, I will shut the fucker off every time and report you for bot abuse.

I know you are a good faith editor but you have not responded in a reasonable time when I have asked. A month is a reasonable time I think. Now, shut your bot off and can we talk about it. You seem not to want to talk about it and go about your merry way with smackbot making stupid edits. With my help it could make better edits. But you do not want to hear it, it seems to me.

Si Trew (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, when I reverted several Slovakian and Hungarian county articles last night, I reverted them to yours or a good edit just past yours. I know you are in good faith, and I love you for it. I hope you appreciate I am too, but hit stop before it did more damage. Yeah I was angry but am not any more. Reply wherever you think best, and restart good old smackbot if you want. Si Trew (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Redating already dated tags, and "ZNovember"?[edit]

This isn't supposed to happen, is it? And what happened here? -- BenRG (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Smack bot is unable to identify internal links in the format of strict verbiage, as contrasted with numbered footnotes. The end notes attribute the references to specific passages of the test by using the phrase "as to" before a verbal description of which portions of the article a specific reference supports. I have read many a book with end notes that start with a quoted passage and then cite the supporting reference. No footnote numbers are used in this system. It works better than numbered footnotes when, as in the case of this article, numerous references each support several statements in the text; in such circumstances, this prevents having the citations appear longer than the text of the article. Any human reader can understand the relationship between the references and the various assertions of the text.

Stranger edits[edit]

Strange edits: Smackbot made these strange edits to the {{citation needed}} dates in Brothers_Grimm. For example, it changed "January 2009" to "ZNovember 2009" and "December 2007" to "ZNovember 2009". -84user (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Effectively fixed here. Fortunately there were only a few. Rich Farmbrough 11:48 16 November 2009 (UTC).

Reformatting references[edit]

Smackbot should not be reformatting references as in this edit [4]. Please disable this ASAP. WP:CITE explains, "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." Changing the refs in this way does cause people to complain, as you can see in this village pump discussion. I looked through the task requests for the bot and did not see any approval to reformat references, although I may have missed it, as BAG has let some bad tasks through before. In any case, references should not be automatically reformatted from one style to another. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I need to make sure I am clear: I will block the bot if I notice it automatically reformatting references without approval. WP:CITE is clear that reference styles should not be changed from one optional style to another. I do not believe it can be very difficult to simply disable this functionality in the bot code. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Following up on the above note, I have blocked SmackBot because of this edit. If reformatting references is an approved task, please point out the BRFA and I will unblock immediately. Otherwise, please fix the bot to stop performing this task until the matter of whether bots should be doing this sort of thing is resolved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please know this is nothing personal; I simply do not think it is appropriate for the bot to be performing this task. I recognize SmackBot does a lot of good work, and I hope to be able to resolve this referencing thing very soon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I noticed SmackBot has an automated "stop" feature, I will use that instead. However, please fix this problem before restarting the bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Please see the section "Reformatting references" on User talk:SmackBot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


I tried to use the "Stop" method to stop the bot, but it did not work. I have blocked the bot for a week, although I am sure the problem can be resolved much faster than that. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XIV does not include permission to add names for duplicate references.

More importantly, this edit is very strange, as the bot is rearranging references that were already named references. That certainly cannot be an approved task; the reference order is always a matter of editorial discretion.

Also, this edit, which came after I employed the STOP button, still added names for references.

I have blocked the bot, but I will unblock it immediately when these things are fixed. Any other admin should also feel welcome to unblock the bot once the code is fixed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, as I said above, I do appreciate your work with SmackBot, I simply feel that the reformatting of references in this way is both an inappropriate task for a bot and an unapproved task at the moment. Perhaps a consensus will form to permit it, but in the meantime this feature should be disabled. I already started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:CITE#Replacing_duplicate_footnotes_with_named_footnotes, which should be allowed to run its course. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it did work, you have your dates mixed. As stated on SB's user page it also implements WP:AWB general fixes. As far as Smackbots main run is concerned (dating tags) this can very well wait a few days. The broken refernces run however which is much shorter is needed on daily or more frequent basis. As to the original point you made the matter is under discussion elsewhere, and I have filed a WP:AWB feature request to limit ref naming in certain circumstances. in terms of ordering refernces at the point where several are cited this is numerical order and seems to be widely accepted. Rich Farmbrough 13:21 16 November 2009 (UTC).
I did have the wrong diff; this diff is dated 11:45, 2009-11-16, but my note was dated 01:20, 2009-11-16. Starting a discussion with the AWB people was a good idea. If you have disabled these AWB features in the meantime, let me know, and I will unblock right away. The problematic features are: rearranging references and adding named references in place of duplicate references. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK it apears possible to turn off ref tagging. I am reluctant to change the ordering it seems to me that everyone uses numerically increasing footnotes, you never see [13],[3],[8],[1] but [1],[3],[8],[13] - and disabling this would I think mean turning off a lot of value adds. Rich Farmbrough, 10:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

People intentionally put footnotes in order with the best reference for a particular claim first and less specific or more general references later. I often see references out of numeric order in the papers I read, for this very reason. So a bot should not be overriding this editorial judgment to put the footnotes in increasing order; it would have to evaluate the actual references and decide if rearranging them makes sense, which is not a task that can be automated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think these discussions have run their course.1 [5], Rich Farmbrough 14:03 18 November 2009 (UTC).

The overarching policy here is not to change citations from one style to another if both styles are permitted. The discussion at WT:CITE doesn't seem to have come to any consensus to change the citation guideline, which says that using named refs is "optional". WP:CITE itself is unchanged.
This is not a change of style. That is talking about Harvard vs APA vs parenthetical vs XXX. And because something is optional doesn't mean it isn't desirable - editors may optionally add categories, may optionally put links in articles, may optionally use section headings. Rich Farmbrough, 09:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
Also, that discussion is only about the named footnotes, not about rearranging the order of references. Rearranging references is particularly problematic if you are replacing duplicate refs with named refs, because editors might have the refs in a specifically chosen order and have the footnotes in numerical order, but then changing to named refs causes the footnotes to become out of numerical order. The order of references has to be chosen by editorial discretion, and so in the presence of named refs there will be many circumstances when the footnotes should not appear in numerical order.
Well it came up in the discussion you started at WP:CITE, and the concern was that they would be in non-numerical order. Rich Farmbrough, 09:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
Like I keep saying, I will be very happy to unblock the bot as soon as you assure me these features have been disabled, or when it is clear that the guidelines have been changed to make these things mandatory. But establishing consensus for making them mandatory will be a slow process, so simply disabling the features in the bot is the best way forward in the short term. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It is a bureaucratic block, and a shame. Rich Farmbrough, 09:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
I am not trying to be solely bureaucratic. I don't believe the bot should be doing this sort of thing, since it goes against our fundamental practice to not change references from one style to another in any mass way. In addition to this, there is no bot approval to do it. I have tried to stay out of the conversation at WT:CITE to see what other people's opinions are. Since yesterday, someone else commented there against making named references mandatory. I don't understand your reluctance to simply disable these features and perform only the tasks for which the bot is approved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I did say I would turn off named refs. The ordering of already named refs, which I have had a few enquiries about, all of which were satisfied with the explanation would require me to reduce the usefulness of the edits across the board, because I would have to turn off all general fixes. I would offer this: if someone comes spontaneously with a genuine case where [13],[3],[8],[1] was superior to [1],[3],[8],[13] I will find a way of resolving that problem. Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
You can simply comment out the appropriate part of the bot's source code, without disabling all the other general fixes. At worst you will need to recompile the code. As someone who runs several bots and has plenty of programming experience, I can't accept the claim that you have no control over the code that your own bot is running.
However, if you need to disable all "general fixes", that is not actually such a big deal. The bot is approved to perform certain specific tasks; the "general fixes" are already a side issue, not a core part of the bot's functionality. But this is not necessary, just recompile the code without the controversial features. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
As someone who's previously brought up a similar issue that regarded this bot implementing changes that would normally be left up to personal preference, I too found the answer that individual changes can't be disabled somewhat troubling, and more so now. I don't fully understand why this is so, but if it is, I think it might be time to rethink the fundamental workings of this bot. It can't be "all or nothing"; and truth be told, I haven't found the general fixes so useful that the answer shouldn't be "nothing", if there is no middle ground. Equazcion (talk) 08:51, 20 Nov 2009 (UTC)

This is not the discussion for a this. If you have a problem with the style of order of references (which is minor IMO) , you should bring it up at the subsequent MOS talk page or even the AWB talk page. The bot, in essence, is a "general fix" bot, so the general fixes parameter is important. Tim1357 (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the discussion for this if there's an underlying concern. This particular issue of footnotes isn't something I particularly care about. However it seems that the bot's actions are directly controlled, and continually change according to, changes made to AWB's general fixes. Those changes to AWB's general fixes are not approved by the bot approval group, since they aren't meant to be applied automatically to all articles via bot. Either they should be subject to such approval, or the bot has to be modified so as not to be entirely subject to them. Equazcion (talk) 06:16, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)
Technically you are right, however General Fixes is usually uncontentious, and usually appreciated. If detailed approval is insisted upon, then we have some options available, but they will doubtless consume many megabytes of talk space and many hours of editor effort. Rich Farmbrough 09:36 21 November 2009 (UTC).
Is there any way you can use a version of the AWB code that doesn't change live according to AWB's developers latest changes? In other words, can you work off your own copy of the AWB code, applying the latest updates manually when you see fit, rather than it occurring automatically when AWB is updated? I don't want to see every change to the general fixes spawn a new discussion, but at the same time, the fact that changes to an assisted process automatically change a fully automated one is still a problem, as added features for the former don't need to be quite as non-contentious as the latter. Equazcion (talk) 09:50, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I am still prepared to unblock the bot immediately once these features regarding references are disabled. Please advise me here or on my talk page and I will unblock ASAP. We could continue talking about these things while the bot is running if you simply disable the controversial features until the end of the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#General_fixes_in_Bot_mode -- Although that still doesn't address your purely immediate concern. Equazcion (talk) 13:07, 21 Nov 2009 (UTC)
I think that getting BAG approval for a fixed (non-changing) set of general fixes would be a good idea, if these fixes are going to be run automatically. But the only motivation for this block is the specific changes to references, and I am hoping to lift it ASAP. There is a strong bias against changing references from one format to another, but most of the AWB general fixes are uncontroversial. So (just to be clear) the broader issue of other general fixes does not affect the block. SmackBot does a lot of good and useful work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I can agree to that. Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
Didn't Rich get approval to do general fixes? Doesn't that include fixing references? And where is the policy that states , as you say, " to not change citations from one style to another if both styles are permitted"? The fact is, that it takes something that looks like this [40][21][32][1] and makes it look like this [1][21][32][40] which is undoubtedly a better syntax. Let us remember that the bot only re-orders references if they are right next to eachother so it really does not change anything, except that they are in ascending order. I think we should lift the block on SmackBot, and let it get back to work. Tim1357 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I also would like to see the bot get back to work, and I am prepared to unblock is ASAP as soon as the unapproved features are disabled. There is no reason that they could not already be disabled, but I have no control over that.
The guideline in question is WP:CITE: "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change to another, unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style.[note 2]". I reviewed SmackBot's bot request and none of them included rearranging references or changing duplicate footnotes to named refs. A bot approval is for a certain particular task, it does not include permission to run arbitrary other fixes in addition to the named task.
For uncontroversial extra "fixes" I would just ignore the lack of approval, but in this case there is a reason why a bot should not be rearranging references. It is very reasonable for editors to manually put citations into a particular order, putting best citation first and more general references later in a list of multiple footnotes. Since a bot cannot tell which reference is the best, it is inappropriate for a bot to be rearranging them automatically, sine this may result in putting a worse reference before a better one. The order of references is something that requires human judgment.
Similarly, the use of the same footnote text with different footnote numbers (that is, the non-use of named references) is a footnote style that some editors adopt and which is acceptable to WP:CITE. Longstanding agreement is not to change articles from one optional style (no named refs) to another optional style (using named refs). The bot should not be doing this.
As I said, will unblock the bot ASAP once these are disabled. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I can agree to that. Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
I read that as saying the features will be disabled before the bot runs again, so I will go ahead and unblock the bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect edits[edit]

Hi, the change to access dates in this edit has also changed the url in the reference. Keith D (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Loop unrolling[edit]

Your bot on loop unrolling completely destroyed the example assembler code making it unintelligible (now fixed)ken (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


You are again going about imposing "named" references on articles previously not using it. I have taken this subject to the administrators' incidents page now. --Hegvald (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot once again, based on [6]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
As I went through the recent edits, I also noticed the bot removed stub tags from some articles: [7], [8]. This is another task that requires human judgment and should not be performed by a bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I will be back on the wiki after a few hours, and as before I will unblock on your assurance that these things are resolved. If you fix them before I come back, then I don't mind if anyone else unblocks (of course). My only interest is in having the bot perform only bot-appropriate tasks, and as soon as possible I hope it can return to its helpful maintenance work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocking 2009-12-11[edit]

I am blocking the bot again, because of this edit. You agreed to disable the reference reordering [9]. Let's discuss this at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Potential falsehoods[edit]

One of the tasks of SmackBot is to introduce {{start date}} and {{end date}} into infoboxes where they do not currently exist. These emit microformats, which are required to be in the ISO 8601 format and Gregorian calendar. How does the bot insure that the input dates are Gregorian dates in order to prevent falsely claiming the output dates are Gregorian, when in fact they might be in some other calendar? --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A related task is introducing the {{birth date}} template into infoboxes. A falsehood was generated here where the microformat falsely proclaims that Alexander III of Scotland was born 4 September 1241 in the Gregorian calendar. I will correct this error momentarily. I would like to know how I can be sure SmackBot will not revisit the article and reintroduce the error. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphan html comment[edit]

I suppose this an AWB issue, but I noticed this edit which changed:

{{DEFAULTSORT:Croydon , Victoria}}<!-- to force comma to sort before space -->

by moving the DEFAULTSORT to a new position. However, the edit left the html comment at the old position, which means it will not help when editors edit the DEFAULTSORT in the future, and the comment will confuse editors who notice it. I restored the comment. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


Ridiculous changes to section headings of Two to two, e.g. Scottish Football League 1922–23. Change them back.

Always nice to get a timely, polite and signed message. Rich Farmbrough 20:56 15 December 2009 (UTC).


Stopping per Wikipedia:BON#SmackBot removal of stub templates. –xenotalk 21:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


Hey Rich,

I don't know if this counts as a 'bad correction', but your bot made a few 'Citation Needed' remarks in a paragraph with three independant references in it. I referenced theat the end of every paragraph, rather than in the middle of a sentence, to improve readability of the article.

If it is necessary, I can put the refs in the middel of the text, but I'd rather not.

Please leave a comment on my user-talk-page with your thoughts on this.

This is the article Storm Over Scaldis

Galatorn (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

STOP : these aren't all orphans[edit]

Bot tagged Coastal Bikol languages and Inland Bikol languages as orphans, when they have 2 dozen mainspace links apiece. Problem seems to be that the links are to a redirect, or possibly that they're in a template.

Also, when a language article has an ISO3 link in its infobox, as e.g. Hrangkhawl language and Kwanga language do, they are referenced, as that link takes the reader to the language's entry at Ethnologue. Often that's where all the info comes from. kwami (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Still Incorrectly Tagging Articles as Orphans[edit]

The bot is still incorrectly tagging articles as orphans. Brachystachyum densiflorum, Androstachys johnsonii, and Argyrodendron actinophyllum are just three examples from after the prior notice of improper tagging. These articles all fail the orphan criteria (3 or more qualifying links). Since this problem first started, SmackBot has incorrectly tagged more than 900 articles. My bot, JL-Bot, is fixing those cases, but SmackBot needs to stop making this mistake. Please disable the orphan tagging until you have this fixed. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Default sort tag for bands[edit]

I've been going through some band categories such as Category:United_States_rock_musical_group_stubs and have noticed that Smackbot has used incorrect default sort tags for many of the bands. For example, if the band's name is "Until December", SmackBot is creating default sort tags like "{{DEFAULTSORT:December, Until}}". I've fixed a number of these. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unapproved task running[edit]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XXII has not been approved, why is the bot running that task? Anomie 12:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please leave capitalization of template names alone[edit]

This date-delinking edit by SmackBot to Generation Rescue changed "{{reflist}}" to "{{Reflist}}" (capitalizing the template name) for no reason. Please leave it lower case; that's the standard style for that template. Thanks. (This is just one example of many.) Eubulides (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

STOP - please flag changes as a bot[edit]

Hi. All of the recent edits for "Delink dates (WP:MOSUNLINKDATES) using Project:AWB" have been tagged as minor. Please can all future edits also be tagged as a bot-edit as well, to aid in watch-list filtering. Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Glory be[edit]

Dear Smack: Thank you so much for delinking irrelevantly linked dates. Goodness only knows what possesses enthuisastic editors to turn them into links to begin with; it is great to have a Bot take care of the chore of undoing them. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

date delinking with piped abbreviated dates[edit]

The bot is delinking dates from [[12 September|12 Sep]] [[1901]] format to 21 September 1901 format. The pipe was there for a reason - to make tables format correctly on limited width screens. What the bot should be doing in these cases in delinking to 12 Sep 1901 format.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


2010 2011 etc etc. WP:MOSUNLINKDATES doesn't apply to year articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the bot should not run again until all those edits are FIXED, not just new edits stopped. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for not STOPPING the bot. If there were a consensus noted at WT:YEARS that it should be changed, that would be different, but the RfCs clearly noted that unlinking did not apply to calendar articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Dates are as relevant as places. It has deleted the links to dates of many radio station articles. The dates are important to the history of the stations and if the links to places are to remain then dates should remain too as they are 2 of the Who, What, Where, When, Why & How answers.Stereorock (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing stub tags[edit]

I commented here on December 5th about SmackBot removing stub tags without approval. [10] I see that it is now being discussed at WP:BON, as someone else has noticed it. Please disable the stub tag removal immediately, as it is (1) not a task that a bot should be performing and (2) not a task that the bot is approved to perform. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Just noticed that on article Interlingua SmackBot replaced "{{ndash}}" with "–", which is just plain wrong: the template produces a spaced en dash (with the leading space a no-break space, at that), whereas SmackBot replaced it with an unspaced en dash. --Pi zero (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi, my name is Keith Warwick, I'm an actor and information about me posted by this user is untrue. Can this user be blocked please.


keith warwick Keithwarwick (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Rich, this edit trashed dates in the table of launches. Please don't run bots that trash articles! ;-)

Thanks for your prompt attention! (sdsds - talk) 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Rich, please don't remove this message or turn the bot back on until you have verified that it will no longer trash dates like this. This is the second recent report of this harmful behavior by this bot. Our encyclopedia does not need this bots efforts! (sdsds - talk) 06:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

STOP - reference template date issues[edit]

Please see User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#SmackBot_dating_issues. Serious errors are being made inside citation templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

References again[edit]

Adding named references again: [11]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


[[12]] seems weird - not your the bot, necessarily, but it does seem like it? --G-41614 (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically - no chance. "prev edit" showswhat the bot did. And the bot edit as a month ago.Rich Farmbrough 13:26 25 January 2010 (UTC).

Rearranging references again[edit]

The bot is rearranging references again:

— Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

TY. Rich Farmbrough 04:12 21 February 2010 (UTC).

Bot is capitalizing template names unnecessarily[edit]

For example, this edit changed "main" to "Main" for no reason. Please respect the capitalization already used in the article. Eubulides (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Another example is this edit, which contains some good editing (adding |date=February 2010) along with lots of unnecessary capitalization of template names. Please leave the capitalization alone in edits like that. Eubulides (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Welding Institute[edit]

Hi Rich,

If I read things correctly you have entered [citation needed] against the statement 'Friction stir welding was introduced by The Welding Institute' on the page for The Welding Institute. But the term 'Friction Stir Welding' is a link to the Wiki page on that process where it states that The Welding Institute invented the process and holds several patents on it. I thought this was sufficient citation, is there anything more to be done?

Thanks Davemckeown 16:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

☑Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough 07:36 4 March 2010 (UTC).


Wadenoijen infobox doesn't look correct --Ida Shaw (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

☑Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough 07:36 4 March 2010 (UTC).

References again[edit]

SmackBot is rearranging references again [14]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the upate to 404 might have fixed it, but the problem is still there [15] [16]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

STOP Re: Hatnotes ![edit]

Per WP:HN, hatnotes go to the TOP of an article page. SmackBot recently placed an Ibid maint. tag at the TOP of the Benjamin Franklin article above the hatnote. I will repair the article, but SmackBot should be programmed to leave hatnotes at the TOP of an article page.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  10:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of BC Report[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, BC Report, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BC Report. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Whenaxis (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Smackbot edits[edit]

Hi Rich,

I removed this message:

from This article has more than 78 in-line references, including the White House, and even other Wikipedia articles. Please provide more details as to what you feel is peacock-ish about this article, and I will be happy to amend or make changes as appropriate. Thank you for your help in making this a better article, Rich. Please reply to my Talk page. Best, Eric Kasum Scubeesnax (talk)

STOP? - Help, not sure![edit]

Hello Rich,

I'm a Wiki beginner, but last summer (with the help of my granddaughter) I managed to create a Wikipedia biography page for Karen Harrison (the first woman in the UK to be appointed as a train driver):

I understand SmackBot (is that you?) has disputed its neutrality. Could you advise me how to go about fixing this or verifying it? I'm a great admirer of the subject of this biography, so I can understand if it appears too biased in her favour. Although Karen Harrison hasn't disputed the contents (apart from correcting my grammar) even she thinks I've painted a rather rose-coloured view of her.

I know there was much criticism of her views during her railway career. Would it help if I added some of that criticism to my page?

Your advice would be much appreciated.

--EasternBloc (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Following my last message, after seeing the post sent after mine, I've removed this box from my page [17].

I hope this is OK. For my questions on which I'd like your guidance, please see my last message.

Regards, --EasternBloc (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi SmackBot I was wondering if you could help mediate a dispute between myself and a user called Anonymous on the "Institute for Policy Studies" Wikipage. He is blanking out all the contributions I am making on that site on the grounds that the sources are "from a blog" or "from biased sources" even you these "biased sources" come in the form of government websites, memorandums and established newspaper outlets.

Thanks Fellytone (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


- I think that having a robot re-order the sequences of grouped citations is a bad idea. The choice of which cite to put first is a part of editor content and should not be automatically undone by a robot. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


For some reason it keeps changing a parameter to the following Template pages from 'team' to 'Team':

Template:2005–06 NHL Southeast Division standings‎ Template:2005–06 NHL Northwest Division standings‎; Template:2005–06 NHL Northwest Division standings‎; Template:2005–06 NHL Central Division standings‎;

I've undone the edits twice -- ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

made wrong change[edit]

made wrong change

Peter Stead (writer)[edit]

The bot marked this article as an orphan today although there was already a link in place from Patrick Hannan (presenter). Why did it do this? Deb (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh - now it's also wrongly orphaned Anna Laetitia Waring. Deb (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Current DEFAULTSORT edits seem to be incorrect[edit]

For example:

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


Please stop missorting Icelandic/medieval people. Steinunn Refsdóttir should not be sorted under R, Refsdóttir is not a surname. Haukur (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


Some of the Deafultsorts your bot is adding are really stupid.

These aren't decisions for a bot to make. Jheald (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Rearranging references - blocked[edit]

I am blocking the bot again, as it has resumed rearranging references [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] . I need to have some way to tell that that bot will not do this again without looking at the bot's contributions before I can unblock the bot. There's no reason this regression should keep happening over and over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Separate problem: [23]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A third problem (CURRENTYEAR again): [24] — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of D-Link G604T Network Adaptor[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article D-Link G604T Network Adaptor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no verifiability, its all original research and its not a notable product. Find at least one neutral review, or really this article should go.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jez t e C 19:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

STOP to change settings for orphans[edit]

Sorry for stopping the bot. Check [25]. Better activate Restrict orphan addition to linkless pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough 11:42 7 May 2010 (UTC).


Rearranging references again: [26]. There's no version number in the edit summary, so you might have 'accidentally' run the wrong version again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that there is no response here, but the bot is still editing, I have to assume the "STOP" feature of the bot is broken. I am going to block the bot pending confirmation that this has been fixed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)



on this page, the bot needs to skip xn-- prefix when looking to make emdash changes. On dns pages the double dash has significant meaning as it's part of the way IDN domains are represented, and the double dash MUST NOT be converted to an emdash.

noticed on

AWB bug raised. Rich Farmbrough, 17:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC).

Page blanking[edit]

This bot blanked the page Battle of May Island. It appeared to add a wikify templete. Here is the diff: [27] I've revereted to the previous version. Gosox(55)(55) 21:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


This bot blanked a page. Here's the diff: [28]. Ask at my talk page with questions. Gosox(55)(55) 21:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Pls turn this off ....i cant kep up with all its errors


Useful message left nearly a day after Sb has edited anything much. No example, no sig just a bunch of typos. Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC). 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


I blocked the bot again; see the history of this page. Not only is the bot going beyond its authorization by rearranging references, it is continuing to make the same edit after the edit is reverted.

  1. There is no reason that removing a deprecated parameter should require rearranging references.
  2. Bots should not make the same edit twice during the same run if it is reverted, because the most common reason that people rollback bot edits is because the edits are broken. This is the more serious problem. I don't think this is an AWB bug, but if it is it needs to be reported there.

Please fix these things (turn off reordering again and prevent the bot from making the same edits repeatedly in a short period of time) and let me know, and I will unblock immediately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit solved the problem with the article in question. I think if an editor reverts a bot that makes (semi)blind edits, they have to contact the bot user in their talk page. Maybe SmackBot needs to add a contact link to edit summary.

Btw, next snapshots will show AWB's revision number to help us detect bugs. I strongly recommend that SmackBot updates to the latest revision. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The established best practice for bots is that they should not repeat edits, because ordinary users find it very offputting to edit war with bots. In a run off of a list, it's expected that a few articles will have to be edited by hand at the end. The bot should not hammer on the list repeatedly; if the first edit fails for any reason, manual intervention is needed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is now also messing with cattrees see -->[29]. i have never seem so many problems in a bot Moxy (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and subst tags again[edit]

SmackBot is (again) redoing edits that were reverted [30]. In this case, it was adding bare subst tags to the article. I will block the bot if it performs the broken edit for a third time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


You had indicated [31] that reference rearrangement was disabled, but it is not: [32]. Please fix the bot code before running the bot again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

that is why it is stopped. Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC).
OK, I see. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit [33] seems to have assumed that there will never be a template call within the date field of a maintenance template. Of course the page was broken to begin with; I don't know what the right behavior is, apart from skipping pages with a template call in that field. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


This edit added a date to a template without removing the old one. Furball3 (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Living people problem[edit]

In this edit, the bot added "Category:Living people" even though the article was already in "Category:Date of death unknown". — jwillbur 07:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


I note that stub tags are being removed with some consistency, some I've stopped the bot until this issue is addressed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Expand section (...)[edit]

I stopped the bot because BP was not the only page. Same appeared in the Deepwater Horizon page. [34] Beagel (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister[edit]

SmackBot is still changing "Prime Minister" to "Prime minister". I pointed this out on 30 June, but the problem has not been fixed. Please fix the bot before restarting it.-gadfium 20:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

removed from list pro tem Rich Farmbrough 21:45 8 July 2010 (UTC).

Fun Publicatons[edit]

In the article Rage (Transformers) this bot messed up the head "Fun Publications" by changing it to "Fun publicatons". The full name is a proper noun and should be capitol for both words. Mathewignash (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


Your bot just mucked up my footnotes again. Leash the thing now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Henry Morgan[edit]

Thanks for leaving a message. Rich Farmbrough--> Smackbot changed "people" to "persons" in the article Henry Morgan.(Huey45 (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC))


This edit is unacceptable. If this bot continues to make editing decisions, I will consider other means of dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

General fixes[edit]

Why is the bot making edits like this, making only cosmetic changes? Ucucha 12:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


SmackBot is disrupting the integrity of cited references on The Kingston Trio page. Many of the citations are web cites to Google Books; in many cases, the books and magazines cited no longer exist in physical form except in publicly unavailable libraries.

SmackBot is also mistaking a citation to a web page of a book to a citation of the book itself. In the case of the article's frequent citations of Billboard Magazine, the bot is inaccurate in referring to the citations as "cite book."

The citations in this article were set up with great care to provide a reference point to the original publications AND to accessible sites for the relevant information and quotations online.

And why SmackBot thinks that the internet-only All Music site is a book is hard to understand.

Hope this can be ironed out. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

As far as I can see this edit [35] did not date any maintenance tags. I might be wrong, but I think the bot has been doing this more often lately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit [36] appeared on my watchlist just now. It doesn't date any tags, but it does rearrange two references. I thought that the bot had been configured to not do that any more, so I haven't been looking at the edits. I'll go through and look to see if there are more reference changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
What maintenance tag was dated in this edit? [37]. The bot does not have approval to run only general fixes - if no tags are dated, the edit needs to be skipped. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I scanned the last 1000 edits made by SmackBot. The main things I see are:

  • Lots of minor edits that should not have been saved [38] [39] [40] [41]
  • Some rearranging of references [42] [43] [44]. The second and third of those should not have been saved anyway.
  • There was a bare CURRENTMONTHNAME added in this edit [45]. This is a regression, since this problem has been fixed before.

Please make sure these are fixed before the bot starts again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like some minor edits are still getting through [46]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not unduly alarumned, this example is likely due to the bot workig double time to catch up with the recent delays. Rich Farmbrough 19:46 2 September 2010 (UTC).

You have to prevent this from happening. One idea of reducing the number of your personal customisations is t use Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Custom_Modules#Customised_.22General_Fixes.22 and remove unwanted features for bots (ReorderReferences for example). "Skip if only whitespace changed" must be activated too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bare subst tag[edit]

This edit added another bare subst tag. I know this has been fixed before, but it needs to be fixed again. [47] — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Thank you to the authors of the script for all the good work Smackbot does on the project.--Adam in MO Talk 07:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


Hello SmackBot,

I am just quiering a page you have placed warnings on. A friend and I are currently studying at university and we are creating pages for an assignment. We are using MOR Cosmetics for ours and believe it is a notable business.

can you please help me fix the article? rather than put warnings up, I need your help! If you can tell me how to fix this I will immediately. I have deleted links we have put up to their MOR cosmetics website and I have tried to put in credible sources (we have been gathering information for ages).

If you can help that would be wonderful with general comments to assist.

Rajesh Khanna article in wikipedia[edit]

i have provided 68 references for the article rajesh Khanna in the wikipedia vizz i need ur help to make it semi protected so that unregistered users do noit edit it at first place. also to my knowledge all sources are mostly from newspapers,magazines,big box office dotcoms, movie websites,interviews by stars. but some registered users like are indulging in vandalism...simply editing the artcile. if at all by mistake some blog reference is there i request that these registered users be made to understand that they are facts and if at all references need to be added freshly in place of that(blog reference ) then that reference be given and not that the para /sentence e be delete.They should be given a warning that they would be blocked.

i need ur help in finding is that really there are any unrelaible source in the artcile i contributed? i know that all the 68 r relaible and if any are unrelaible then i request that as what i have submitted are all facts so new relaible source can be inserted and scentences may not be deleted. references provided by me are genuine and not bolgs. thats why iam asking for your help as if senior people go through the references , all of u would be satisfied and approve my references.

iam sure that administrators and seniors would agree with me that all the references i provided are genuine and any ways as facts are presented by me ,, we can search for sources and oput it in place of blogs if at all there are...Shrik88music (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing date links from year articles AGAIN[edit]

The bot is improperly editing year articles, such as 2010. AGAIN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dates too. [48]. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)