User talk:Ladsgroup

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

ap.google is dead since 2008[edit]

These are the two way to fix this:

  1. If a second ref already exists for the same thing, just remove the ap.google one
  2. Otherwise google search and replace. Usually it is the first choice. Remove the dead link notice too.

Examples: [1], [2].

Due to complexity we need something semi-manual. A bot can't handle all the various cases. Estimated number of pages: 900. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Per Bgwhite canadianpress.google is dead too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Magioladitis: What do you think of making a gadget? I know how to build the one to solve this :) :)Ladsgroupoverleg 04:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to help! -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I wish I was born with the brains that Amir or one of the other smart programmers have around here. But then again, you can't teach an old dog a new trick... My first language I used for a long time was FORTRAN. Bgwhite (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

OCLC[edit]

I also need you to clean up OCLC numbers as I did here. The worldcat external links should be replaced by the template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Tricky [3]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Let me see what I can, I'm currently cleaning up Template:Cite doi too :)Ladsgroupoverleg 10:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot and blank PMID pages, etc[edit]

Hi Amir, Dexbot is not dealing well with cases where PMID citation templates have been blanked, which happened (for example) at proprioception due to this edit. I've gone through AnomieBOT's contributions down to the morning of two days ago (UTC) to find other similar cases; I hope I've caught most of them. Also, "fixations" in the edit summary should be changed to "fixes", because "fixations" usually refers to something else. Graham87 08:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I fixed the bot, thank you for telling me :)Ladsgroupoverleg 10:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Confused edit summaries[edit]

Re: [4]wikt:fixation doesn't mean what you think it means.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, people told me that already and I fixed it, thank you for telling me. It won't happen again :) Best :)Ladsgroupoverleg 22:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot in Watchlist[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your fixes using Dexbot. Is there any way they can be made not to show up in my watchlist, please? Dexbot's edits are so numerous that I'm losing track of other editors' edits. Thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you. You can hide edits of bots. There is an option for that in watchlist but if you can't do that (e.g. to check edits of other bots) I don't have anything else to offer. Besides edits of my bot will finish very soon :) Best :)Ladsgroupoverleg 00:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; unfortunately that flag also hides subsequent edits by non-bot editors. I'll just wait. Once again, thanks for your work. fgnievinski (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Came by to thank for the edits too. @Fgnievinski: You're look for Hide bots. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot leaving template variables[edit]

I've been cleaning up template variables that dexbot leaves behind. Examples: [5] [6] [7]. |authorlink= seems a popular parameter to leave on in. I've cleaned up ~30 in the past two days. They have all appeared when replacing the doi cite template. Bgwhite (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Another issue. There were 348 articles today that had the article's title as a wikilink in the article. Examples: [8] [9] [10] Magioladitis' Yobot cleaned them all up today. Bgwhite (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks for picking these issues, the bot only dumps what is in subpage of Template:Cite doi and Template:Cite pmid and problems are coming from there, most of them are easily fixable and are formatting issues, easily can be done :)Ladsgroupoverleg 15:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot and doi[edit]

I noticed that Dexbot is not correctly handling doi templates that included bot instructions such as {{bots|deny=Citation bot}}. Dexbot is placing the bot instructions on the pages that previously used {{cite doi}}, which results in the bot instructions being applied to the pages that used to use the citation, rather than just the page containing the citation. See, for example, this edit. —RP88 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, If I understood you correctly, I should remove {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} from new pages. Is it what you mean? :)Ladsgroupoverleg 15:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Dexbot should not move any use of {{bots}} (no matter what the parameters) from doi subpages into pages that use the {{cite doi}} template when it removes a use of {{cite doi}}. Ideally dexbot should also fix its earlier edits where it has already placed a {{bots}} tag on pages from which it removed {{cite doi}} templates. —RP88 (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I see, I will fix it for next run (this one finished) and if I have time I remove the added ones (probably by hand, I get the list from bot though) :)Ladsgroupoverleg 07:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think the number of pages that need fixing is large, but if the list is large, and you decide to do the fixes manually, and you post the list somewhere, I would be happy to help you make the fixes. —RP88 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

All of possible mistakes are:

I check them all by hand, It's not much. :) Best :)Ladsgroupoverleg 07:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

These ones had problem and I fixed them:

It's done now :) Best :)Ladsgroupoverleg 07:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the BAG approval for this task. Where is it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 4 Thanks :)Ladsgroupoverleg 07:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Not doing some substitutions[edit]

In this edit it did not actually do any pmid substitutions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antibody&type=revision&diff=675387465&oldid=673578910. This might be related to white space in the {{cite pmid}}. Also, don't forget to do {{cite jstor}} which is just a {{cite doi}} wrapper and the obscure {{cite hdl}}. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I fixed this kind of edits, won't happen again. I will do that too, Thank you for telling me :) :)Ladsgroupoverleg 07:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot removing cite doi templates[edit]

Hi,

I don't know where the right place to object to this is, but the removal of the cite doi templates that Dexbot has started doing on a widespread basis is quite disruptive. The cite doi templates are very useful and lead to clear, easy-to-work-with references. In one edit, Dexbot added 20 KB to Milky Way with no evident gain except clutter throughout the source of the article. Can this be stopped? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Please read Template:Cite doi. There is community consensus for deprecating these kind of templates. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 14:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, one editor determined that there was a consensus over a year ago, and this change is getting forced upon those of us who don't follow that talk page much too late to effectively challenge that misinterpretation of consensus. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Because no one was willing to take this step. If you don't like it, you can start an RFC and if it was successful fell free to revert edits of my bot but in the mean time I worked based on community consensuses :)Ladsgroupoverleg 14:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Ashill I opposed this for more than a year then eventually changed my mind. Some people may still oppose this. I restored the latest discussion to the Cite doi template - you can read it there. I think that would be the place to post an RfC.
It is a complicated issue. If you need help calling for additional comments, then I might assist you. I think the "cite doi" template talk page would be the best place for more discussion. Consider checking over what has already been said, if you have not already. The narrative may not be so clear to track but this is a discussion that went on for a long time. There is not universal support for removing these templates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Yes, I had read the discussion in the archives at Template talk:cite doi. I'm not sure I have the stomach to get involved in what I'm sure will be a protracted discussion, but having pages I edit changed wholesale for the worse (from an editor's point of view; neutral from a reader's) a year after the discussion was (erroneously, IMO) closed makes this bureaucratically entrenched. I guess I will bring it up there. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Ashill There is no need to commit deeply to a discussion. Write 2-3 sentences, try to make a simple request, and let's see what happens. I think there is less bureaucracy here and more being bold. I think that people would comment more if requested. If you need help posting the RfC let me know, but I still need you to ask for whatever comments you want. Ping me if you need something. I will cross-post to WikiProject Medicine when it is up. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Bluerasberry. It's partly knowing myself; I don't tend to be good at dropping out of discussions once I've said my piece. :) The problem is that when I challenged the boldness, I was told that consensus is established and that I should take one of the bureaucratic approaches to establish a new consensus (when, from my reading, it's abundantly clear that there was no consensus to begin with) while the bot's difficult-to-reverse-later damage would continue. But I have now brought this up at Template talk:cite doi. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
one way to keep the clean articles is to put the references in the {{reflist}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The issue of tidy wikitext versus source-text integrity has been discussed ad nauseum without a satisfactory decision. wp:LDR are widely disliked in large articles. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup: I've started a discussion at Template talk:cite doi. I ask you to suspend the bot's large scale substitution of these templates while that discussion is ongoing. Edits like what the bot is doing are essentially impossible to undo if a significant number of other edits happen in the meantime, so the suggest to undo the bot's edits later on is not helpful, unfortunately. Ordinarily, when there's a large-scale bot action after a discussion in a place that is relatively narrow, the bot operator starts with a small scale set of edits to see if there's opposition, since actually editing articles makes editors who wouldn't otherwise see the discussion aware of the situation. Did that happen here? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 02:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverse all the edits now the consensus of Luddites is not real consensus. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. all references should be given with a concrete way and not by creating dozens of subpages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

just because you don't get how to find these references doesn't mean we should progress backwards. 166.176.57.150 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, thanks to trying to implement the consensus at cite doi. I think that there's consensus to deprecate template:cite isbn based on this discussion but I'll leave it up to you on whether you want to jump in there. There's a parallel discussion I have about the orphaned ones for ISBN at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Orphaned_cite_isbn_subpages and I suspect we may come back to the orphan ones from Dexbot's actions later. Did your bot keep a list of which DOI templates it went though? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    Hey, I don't have it but I can get list of orphan subpages of cite doi very easily for you (either by a SQL query or a bot) :)Ladsgroupoverleg 15:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
it is now closed with deprecate. But to reduce disruptive edit claims; you should probably limit to pages with three or less {{cite pmid}} or {{cite doi}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
please do {{cite hdl}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Changing others' usernames[edit]

I think you better return from your wiki-break. Your account has suddenly started changing usernames of other editors. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

an example please to help him out. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@GoodDay and AManWithNoPlan: That's what I came here about, very confusing! See here. 220 of Borg 10:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It appears that user:Enthusiast01 (40k+ edits) exists, but User talk:Enthusiast01 redirects to User talk:Enthusiast which is where User talk:Ewawer (only 3 edits) was moved to. WTF? 220 of Borg 10:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot adding article's title wikilinked in text[edit]

See this edit for Edward Mellanby. It wikilinked Edward Mellanby. Did the same thing 20 other articles today too. Bgwhite (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

technically speaking, the bot did not add it, the bot just made it explicit. Yet another reason that this edit was a good thing,. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

science[edit]

When did science started? Emirexo (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

نظر[edit]

نظر شما من باب برخورد با چنین کاربری با داشتن افکار پوسیده دوران جنگهای صلیبی چیست

بنده خواهان برخورد صریح با ایشان هستم ولی افسوس که زرشک مدتی است آنلاین نشده چون خودش بهتر می توانست اعاده حیثیت بکند. لاپوشانی کردن این نظر مرا خیلی آزرده خاطر میکند باید اقدام سنگینی مقابل اظهارنظر سخیف و بی پروای این کاربر داشت.--SaməkTalk 13:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

در WP:AN مطرح خواهم کرد. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 13:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

جالبه تمام مدیران در برابر لفاظی این کاربر درباره ارامنه ساکت بود این کاربر هر چی از دهنش درآمد به ارامنه گفت چه توهینی هایی که این کاربر به قول خودش آذری زبان به ارامنه نکرد مدیران کجا بودند که چه فرقی بین یک ترک (یا آذری) و ارمنی وجود دارد چرا چون اکثریت مدیران را و دیوانسالاران که ترک (یا آذری) هستند باید این کاربر را حمایت کنند و ساکت باشد شما اگر واقعا دیوانسالارید باید همان ابتدا این کاربر نژادپرست را می بیستید ولی نکرید الان هم یک شاهکار دیگه نجاست اهل کتاب ویکی فارسی کلکسیونی از توهیانت مذهبی و قومی. شده است تا ماجراها تا کجا باید پیش برود

آیا پاسخی منطقی برای جملات بنده دارید برای یه هموطن غیر مسلمان و غیر آذری (ترک) غیر شیعه ... پاسخی برای یک هموطن فارغ از نژاد و مذهب و دین و زبان ...World Cup 2010 (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

محض اطلاعتان من ایرانیم ولی شیعه نیستنم. دل خونی نیز از مسلمانان و شیعیان دارم ولی چنین حرف‌هایی از طرف ایشان ندیده‌ام. اگر ایشان چنین کاری کرده‌اند لطفا به من نشان دهید تا آن را بررسی کنم (من در اینجا مدیر نیستم فقط می‌توانم مطرح کنم) در مورد ویکی‌پدیای فارسی. نجاست اهل کتاب را بررسی خواهم کرد ولی لطفا از همان کارهایی که جمهوری اسلامی می‌کند نکنید. اگر کسی در جایی خطایی کرد و مجازات نشد دلیل آن نیست که مجوز تکرار آن خطا (یا بدترش هر عمل تخلف) را شما دارید. یکی بی‌قانونی می‌کند شما نباید به آن دامن بزنید. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 16:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

در ویکی انگ همیشه با طیفهای مختلف سعی در برخورد سازش پذیر و محافظه کارانه داشتم کاربران ایرانی (ایرانیان داخل و خارج کشور که اصلا در ویکیفا نیستند) و خارجی اینجا خیلی هوشمند و باسواد هستند مثله کاربران ویکیفا نیستند که مرا مانند شما متهم به چه و چه کنند اینجا با 500 تا مقاله و 10000 تا ویرایش یکبار هم حتی تهدید به بلاک شدن نشدم و به هیچ دلیلی مورد تفتیش عقیده قرار نگرفتم هر زمان نیز خواستید و موردی برخلاف قوانین ویکی شد از بنده شکایت کنید بنده مثله شما اهل توهین و دشنام نیستم. فقط مقداری سخنان برحقم تیز و برنده هست و هرکسی طاقت شنیدنشان را ندارد

امیرجان از اینکه تلاش خود را کردین متشکرم، فقط گویا دوستان مدیر ویکی انگلیسی با ترجمه‌گر گوگل به درستی ترجمه نکرده‌اند و کاربر فوق خیلی شانس آورد که به قولی آسوده دررفت چونکه مقداری گفتاری توهین کردند و ترجمه‌گر نیز یحتمل از ترجمه این لغات عاجز شد، بنده با عقاید شما آشنا هستم و تفتیش عقیده نیز نمی‌کنم و عقایدتان برای همه باید محترم باشد و برایتان آرزوی موفقیت دارم. زاپاس نرسی چه عجب اینجا نظر نداده اس:)تSaməkTalk 19:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

امیر گرامی، متاسفانه اینا مشغول سوءاستفاده از اخلاق شما هستند. این مورد در ویکی فارسی رو یادتونه یا نه؟ این کاربر هم همپالگی و یار گرمابه همون یارو است. حس هموطن بودن این جماعت فقط وقتی گل میکنه که بخوان از کسی سوءاستفاده کنند که کار خودشون رو پیش ببره. سیاهه کاری این کاربر هم در ویکی فارسی مشخصه و برخلاف ادعایی که میکند کاربر خوشنامی نیست. نظرات قصارش در صفحات بحث قابل دسترسه و بارها به خاطر رفتار ناهتجارش یا تذکر گرفته و یا جریمه شده است. در اینجا هم بهانه‌اش شیعه است، اما فقط این چند مورد را ببینید تا پی ببرید در عمل با چه کسی طرف هستید. مقاله محبوب این پسرک و دیگر اعضای گروهک در آن وبلاگشان، این هم شاهکارهای دیگر در ویکی داده، این یکی و این یکی. چرندی که میگه جالبه. اصلن هم اهل توهین نیست به قول خودش! فقط در این جستجوی ساده ببینید که چه رفتار نفرت‌انگیزی داره. مردک فکر میکنه چون کسی تا حالا پیگیر رفتارش نشده و حسابش بسته نشده است، کارش بیست بیسته!سم‌ک، اگه کسی ریز و درشت خلاصه ویرایش‌هایت و نظرات قصارت رو دربیاره و گزارش کنه، تاپیک بن میشی. کسی که نمیتونه یه جمله درست به فارسی بنویسه و در اینجا هم از مترجم گوگل استفاده میکنه، رفته بالای منبر و مشغول اظهارفضل و رجزخوانی است. تو و بقیه دوستانت فاضل و دانشمندت بهتره همون سیرکی رو که راه انداختین رو جمع کنید، ویکی فارسی و انگلیسی پیشکش. ریز و درشت کارهاتون رو هم وزارت اطلاعات داره، هم اطلاعات سپاه، هم پلیس فتا و هم چند نهاد امنیتی دیگر. تو هم دلت به همین چیزا خوش باشه پانترک عقده‌ای.--188.158.68.130 (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

نرسی جان بالای 100 مقاله از شهدا و روحانیون انقلابی ایران ساختم مطمئنن هیشکی مثله من اینچنین به انقلاب و اسلام خصوصا تو ویکی انگلیسی ارزش نداده. خودمو برای ساختن مقالات این بزرگواران تحسین می‌کنم. نه مثله شما که اجنبی پرست آریایی هستین و منتظر انتخابات دشمن شکن خبرگان نیز هستم تا بازهم مقالات روحانیون بزرگوار و انقلابی را در این ویکی ساخته دینم را به انقلاب و اسلام ادا کنم.

ادب از که آموختی از بی‌ادبان. هرکجا موردی خلاف بود شکایت کنید تا مورد بررسی قرار گیرد از خودتان تهمت و دشنام ندهید که کار ضعیفان هست جناب نرسی:) بیشتر از این نیز صفحه امیر را مخدوش نفرمایید اگر کاری چیزی نامه ای و شکایتی دارید در جای خود مطرح کنید نه صفحه بحث امیر. بنده از طرف نرسی از شما

امیر گرامی به خاطر مخدوش نمودن صفحه بحثتان عذر میخواهم که چطور یک کاربر مسدود، مطرود و بی ادب این چنین جو را متشنج می کند.--SaməkTalk 09:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

New task[edit]

Could you delete almost all of these pages (basically don't delete things like the sandbox):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Cite+pmid%2F&namespace=10

Basically any of these pages that are of the type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_pmid/######### where the number signs are any number from 1 to a pretty big number. None of them are used anymore and no one watches them anymore. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I would love to but I'm not admin (neither my bot) in English Wikipedia. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 08:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Dexbot: Forced Migration error[edit]

Dexbot with this edit removed legitimate interwiki links between forced migration and its corresponding Spanish and Portuguese articles and replaced it with ones about a different concept: expulsion. Please rectify whatever part of the bots code that is causing this error. Ebonelm (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty strange since It was a standard script from pywikibot with some little modifications. I check everything again and probably fix everything :)Ladsgroupoverleg 20:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Interwiki error[edit]

I've reverted the edit your bot made here as the relevant interwiki links to not appear to have been migrated to Wikidata yet. Can you check if other changes you've made are similarly affected? Optimist on the run (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I found cause of error. Fixing it is easy but fixing errors caused by the bot might take a while. Let me check :) Thanks for telling me. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 20:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixing should not imply readding the interwikis in English Wikipedia but adding the missing entries in Wikidata. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I take the easiest way of fixing a bot's error, which is revert it. If I wanted to learn how Wikidata works I would have done so, but I have better things to do with my time. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Optimist on the run Ladsgroup will fix properly for us. No worries. -- Magioladitis (talk)

I'm bringing back interwiki conflicts they consists up to one third of interwikis now. So about 2K articles. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 12:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki link errors?[edit]

Why is this bot deleting links to legit articles in other languages? Thanks, Markhh (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Interwikilinks should be stored in wikidata. We need to move them to wikidata. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 10:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Dexbot reverting itself?[edit]

Hey, I just noticed Dexbot removing an interwiki link, but then restoring it 18 hours later with the edit summary "Bot: Fix mistake" on the article Olivia Newton Bundy. Was this intentional? Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, yes :) :)Ladsgroupoverleg 14:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Another substitution pass through the remaining Cite doi templates?[edit]

Is there any chance that Dexbot could make a pass through the remaining Cite doi templates and substitute them? As far as I can tell, there are 94 templates that are still transcluded. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I just ran it but the bot couldn't find anything to do. Let me check why :)Ladsgroupoverleg 13:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
That's because they are transcluded directly hence my bot can't find them. I'm fixing it and running my bot again. You will have most of them fixed very soon :)Ladsgroupoverleg 13:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done :)Ladsgroupoverleg 14:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There were still three or four that were transcluded in articles as Cite pmid templates for some strange reason, and one that was the target of a template redirect. I handled those. It's much easier to take care of the odd cases when a bot sweeps through and does the overwhelming majority of the work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016[edit]

As a past contributor, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

  1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
  2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
  3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Dexbot and update template[edit]

Hello, Dexbot should add the month parameter to the update template when it's using it; at the moment, AnomieBOT has to clean up after it. Thanks. Graham87 04:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, sure. The bot is done this time, I'll do it for the next run. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 10:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Dexbot edit at Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, Ladsgroup.

Dexbot added the page lad:Usador:Doc James/Open Textbook of Medicine to our wiki. There is surely no problem with that content, or that this happened. But isn't that sort of thing outside the remit of global bots? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I did it based on James suggestion in Wikimania. You are right that it shouldn't be done via bot flag. It was the default and won't happen again. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I would like to thank you for joining our alliance and working with CHECKWIKI errors #19, #25 and #83. There is a new database dump coming up soon. Be prepared. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! :D :)Ladsgroupoverleg 10:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)