User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 5

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

Newlines…

…make raptor jesus cry. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

lead too long

Can the bot be trained not to say so to a FA that appeared on the Main page, such as Great Auk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The bot didn't say so, FoCuSandLeArN (talk · contribs) did in the previous edit. All AnomieBOT did was add |date=July 2012 to the existing tag. Anomie⚔ 10:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing references?

The bot has been removing references (see here for an example) from taxoboxes, despite the fact that the template contains a line for this. Should it be doing so? For one thing, it's causing errors in several articles, as the bot has removed named references which are used later in the same article. MeegsC | Talk 03:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! Brain fart. Ignore this, it's fine! MeegsC | Talk 03:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Hello Anomie. Just to bring to your attention that AnomieBOT hasn't updated WP:CHU/U. Best regards — Frankie (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that AnomieBOT's server appears to have crashed, again; I'll reboot it once I get back home soon-ish. I hope the hardware isn't getting ready to fail, this has been happening too often, lately... Anomie⚔ 21:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding old AFD tag to a redirect

I noticed the bot added a tag about the closed AFD to the redirect at Talk:John Oppliger, which made the page no longer actually be a redirect. Would it be possible to get it not to add the old AFDs tag to pages that are currently redirects? Calathan (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting me know! Anomie⚔ 01:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Can unassessed articles be assessed?

Is it possible to take a list like this and tag all the articles as low importance? RockMagnetist (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's possible, if there is consensus. Anomie⚔ 15:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:USURP

Not sure when the Bot's message for the headers changed but re: [1] (was [2]), it should be "on or after" to reflect the need for a 7 day wait for non SUL requests. For accuracy, perhaps: "Requests left here will usually not be addressed before [DATE], unless related to SUL unification" would be best. WJBscribe (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It was changed in January 2011 at the request of xeno (talk · contribs), see User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 3#CHUUClerk. I know xeno is mostly inactive now, but are there any other 'crats currently active that want to weigh in on the wording? Anomie⚔ 22:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I flagged this up on WP:BN, so we can give it a few days to see if anyone disagrees or wants to tweak the language. WJBscribe (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Updating new banner

(Copied from Bot request page)

I need the bot to replace an old banner. The articles on this category Category:WikiProject Latin American music articles with the old banner {{WikiProject Latin America}} are to replace with this banner:{{WikiProject Latin music|class|importance}}.

In addition to the above, I need a bot to tag these articles as the scope of the project has expanded: Category:Spanish music Category:Portuguese music Category:Cape Verdean music Category:Canarian music

Thanks! Erick (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there consensus for any of this anywhere? Anomie⚔ 14:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's the discussion. It was also given the okay at the Council talk page. Erick (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Should the banner {{WikiProject Latin America|class=|music-importance=}} really be replaced, or should it be left in place but with |music-importance= removed? Anomie⚔ 20:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It should be replaced because there are several articles that were tagged that does not fall under the WikiProject Latin America. Most notably, people from countries like Spain that do not fall under WikiProject Latin America but are in the scope of the Latin music project. Erick (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, AnomieBOT

Thanks, AnomieBOT, for doing those tedious tasks no one wants to do. Khballin (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Drink up!

A drink of oil for you!
(edit conflict)Thank you for substituting lots of templates! Anderson - what's up? 03:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed

You placed a citation needed on this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nagios&action=history page. I assume it's because you want proof of the survey? If this is the case, I will check to see if I am aloud to provide it. What kind of proof do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABC123twytom (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You are confused. The {{citation needed}} was added by Naparuba (talk · contribs) in a previous edit; all AnomieBOT did was add |date=August 2012 to the tag so the page would be sorted into the correct maintenance categories. That said, what is needed there is a citation to the survey in question; see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for an introduction to providing one. Anomie⚔ 17:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Dated categories

Hey Anomie. Is it possible for Anomie bot to create categories like Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify from July 2012 as they appear? WikiProject Wikify is undergoing a massive restructuring so we are adding all of the articles from the subcategories we are taking on into the larger container category as well. Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way. Care to take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify#Categorization? Ryan Vesey 18:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

My mistake. BigNate37(T) 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Greg McKegg - thanks!

Hi, Thanks so much for catching the need to add the comment about the previous AfD. I saw the message flash as I was making the edit to add the project template and didn't know how to get it posted again - as it wasn't in history. Great job, as always!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for all the catches you find... you're amazing! CaroleHenson (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

TfD Clerk

FYI, July 26 is complete. I am guessing it's the subsections that is causing the problem? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's seeing that the subsections are not closed. I'll have to see if I can think of a good solution for that. In the mean time, I've poked at things so the bot should ignore that day now. Anomie⚔ 11:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please make [insert name of bot] a little less eager

Please see the discussion here [3] and consider applying similar considerations to AnomieBOT (at least with respect to delay-before-acting). Thanks. EEng (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to the TagDater task, it already waits 20 minutes since the last edit to the page. That's hardly "eager". Anomie⚔ 12:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
(When I click my link above it doesn't seem to be be processing the page anchor correctly -- not sure what's wrong but you should be looking at the section headed "Please make helpful pixie a little less eager to be helpful"). Now then...
I'm not sure what your "scare quotes" around "eager" are for, but it "seems" to me that you "might" not have really "considered carefully" what was said in the discussion "linked above". Please don't be defensive. I just think that the bot will better serve the project if it waits much longer before acting. Reasons are given in the linked discussion, and indeed that bot's human master agreed to increase the time delay. Please reconsider and let me know what you think.
Yours in normlessness, EEng (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I love your js for section previews that include refs. Ought to be incorporated as standard -- somehow.
<bump> EEng (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBot Request

Hey Anomie, I was wondering if you could move a couple userboxes over to User:UBX (however that is done) and then switch all the transclusions for each userbox. The userboxes in question are....

If this is possible (or not), please let me know. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's possible, but AnomieBOT is not approved for such tasks. Truth be told, there's probably little reason you can't just move the userboxes and leave the redirects to handle existing uses. But if necessary, an AWB user could take care of these semi-automated quickly enough, as there's only a little over 100 transclusions all together. Best to ask at WP:BOTREQ in that case. Anomie⚔ 03:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I can ask an AWB user, I wasn't sure if they were allowed to do that, but I will ask. I think I have a couple folks on my watchlist who use AWB. Thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: prevents rollback

Hi, re this edit - sometimes a good-faith bot edit can make it harder to revert vandalism. The three immediately-preceding edits were a blatant WP:BLP vio, but I couldn't use rollback, because the bot edit was in the way. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There are other ways to revert besides rollback, and I note the bot did wait over 30 minutes before substing there. Anomie⚔ 23:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Odd file situation

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 20#File:World Heritage Site divison map.png. The bot closes the discussion because the file information page is a redirect, but there is a file under the redirect. The file doesn't seem to be at the page where the redirect goes. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was weird. No idea how that situation happened. I've merged the file and the description page history together at File:World Heritage Site division map.png and reopened the discussion; as for the bot closing it in the first place, it's not supposed to do that but the MediaWiki API was returning results as if there was no image at the title. This appears to be T28036. Anomie⚔ 21:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Defunct Airlines has been converted to a task force—please change project tags

Hello, I would like to request that AnomieBOT would change tags for articles that are part of the Defunct Airlines task force. It was discussed here. Anyway, what I want the bot to do is change the project banner on pages, which is {{WPAVIATION}}. It should change the following parameters: from |Defunct-Airlines-project= and |Defunct-project= to |Defunct-Airlines-task-force= and |Defunct-task-force=, respectively. Once the bot is done with this, please let me know on my talk page so I can have the parameters |Defunct-Airlines-project= and |Defunct-project= deleted from the template {{WPAVIATION}}. Thanks, Compdude123 20:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Note I'm very busy at the moment, so if you want this done quickly you might want to ask someone else or ask at WP:BOTREQ. Anomie⚔ 21:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive ER backlog

Can AnomieBOT please clear the lengthy Wikipedia:Editor review backlog - I've marked a dozen of the requests as reviewed, as they are old requests that had left noarchive comments or the asterix on their pages. Seems the bot has not visited since though? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 21:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that the bot requires that requests be inactive (defined as "not edited") for 7 days before being archived, so the ones you edited yesterday should be archived on August 26. Anomie⚔ 21:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

EDITREQTable not properly updated

It seems that some uses of {{request edit}} are not being reported on User:AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable. Specifically:

Are the requests being improperly formatted somehow? or is there a bot problem? DES (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see {{request edit}} currently used at all on Talk:K&L Gates; I see numerous past uses that are now nulled out. As for the other two, I didn't know that {{request edit}} was allowed to be used on non-talkspace pages. Is it? Anomie⚔ 01:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know, I am responding to a complaint by the editor who placed these that they were not being attended to, and noted that they were in the category but not in the table. Thanks. DES (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect rescued ref

Hi Anomie,
the reference rescued in this edit seems wrong. The ref name was rather generic, and apparently the bot took the reference body from another article. If that is intentional behavior I would assume it will get it wrong more often than not (and in any case the article in question did have a ref with that name in its history, e.g. in [4]).
Cheers, Amalthea 11:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it gets it right pretty often. It's not often the case that people use the same name for different refs in similar articles. But the not picking it up from the history was a bug, due to the MediaWiki change in gerrit:17161. Fixed that now; I'll have to remember later to go through the bot's recent edits and see how many other articles were affected by this. Anomie⚔ 17:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, alright, I didn't realize you were only looking in related articles, I didn't see the connection in this case (the titles seemed completely unrelated, now I see that one is linking to the other and I assume that's what you go by). Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 21:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
... and interestingly, that patch caused one of my bots to stop working properly since it explicitly looked for the rvstartid attribute ... :) Amalthea 12:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Eugenio Corecco

Please can you add the template of translation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fracati2 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to {{Translated page}} it should be placed on Talk:Eugenio Corecco, not Eugenio Corecco. Anomie⚔ 10:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
For rescuing orphaned refs on the Kaiser Tufail article. You got there before me :) Mar4d (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
AnomieBOT thanks you. Anomie⚔ 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
With compliments! Mootros (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
AnomieBOT thanks you. Anomie⚔ 14:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You work for Wikipedia Kelenna (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Negative edits

This seems odd: "Requesting user has 2302 undeleted edits and -19 deleted edits, for a total of 2283 edits." The math is right, but what could cause negative deleted edits? 28bytes (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a long-standing issue. Since the bot is not an admin, it can't query the deleted edits directly. It can get the edit count from the API (i.e. this), which includes both deleted and non-deleted edits but does not include the dummy revisions created for page moves and other log actions. So it takes the entire list of contributions, tries to match them up with the log actions, and subtracts to estimate the deleted edits. But I just looked, and apparently sometimes the move log action and the move dummy revision are not recorded with the same timestamp, so the bot doesn't manage to correlate them. This user has done a lot of moves and has no deleted edits (except for one dummy revision from a move), so the count winds up negative. Anomie⚔ 00:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation. 28bytes (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Very nice!

All hail AnomieBOT for the fixes and reference rescue at Mitt Romney after edits for brevity of 50% of one section (per Peer Review) left errors and dangling references! This saves so much time!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

IFDCloser: Trial complete!

This task was in trial until 2012-08-28 14:33:27 (UTC), which has now passed. Please stop the task and report the completion of the trial at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 67. Thanks. 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⚡ 14:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

PUICloser: Trial complete!

This task was in trial until 2012-08-28 14:33:27 (UTC), which has now passed. Please stop the task and report the completion of the trial at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 67. Thanks. 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⚡ 14:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

status ref in taxoboxes

This bot has been moving references out of taxoboxes; see this edit as an example. However, this is the correct place for this reference; see Template:Taxobox. I think that this bot should stop doing this and put back all the references that it has taken out of taxoboxes. Snowman (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The bot does that is because if an article has |foo=123<ref name="fooref">...</ref> in the infobox and <ref name="fooref"/> in the article text, then things will break if the infobox is edited to remove support for |foo= (this happens more often than you might think). But if the article has |foo=123<ref name="fooref"/> in the infobox and <ref name="fooref">...</ref> in the article text, everything works fine. Note the rendered output of the article is identical so long as the infobox continues to support |foo=.
So if I get time, I'll look into having the bot try to detect whether |foo= is actually supported in the template before moving the ref out. But going back and reverting would be pointless. Anomie⚔ 21:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
References inside taxoboxs work fine, so you can go right ahead and fix the problem that this bot has in making unnecessary edits to animal pages. Snowman (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:PUF/WP:FFD clerking

Hi, would AnomieBot like to extend its clerking of WP:PUF and WP:FFD by doing the daily new page creation for the two and adding the boilerplate, like so, taking over NoomBots task? Noom talk stalk 08:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good for AnomieBOT to take over. I just need to find time to code it ;) Anomie⚔ 18:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, BRFA filed Anomie⚔ 05:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Anomie! Noom talk stalk 20:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

ban confusion

Was I previously usernameblocked, because my userpage has a history of "(spamusernameblock)" "UsernameHardBlocked)" and "(Vaublock)" Why??? I used the word pwn becase I like to pwn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kg pwn (talk • contribs) 02:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no such history on your userpage. I do see you placed these templates yourself on your sandbox page ([5][6][7]). Personally, I would suggest you leave off fooling around with your userpage and sandbox and instead find something to do that will actually contribute to Wikipedia. Anomie⚔ 10:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

PUI: "This image is currently tagged as non-free"

Recently I have listed two images at WP:PUI because they have conflicting copyright tags:

AnomieBOT has commented in both PUI discussions (1 and 2) that the file is currently tagged as non-free, suggesting that WP:PUI is not the appropriate venue for the discussion. But the entire issue is that the files are tagged both as non-free and as free. Can the bot code be changed so that the "currently tagged as non-free" message is posted only if the image does not also have a free tag? —Bkell (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done We can test it in a few minutes by removing AnomieBOT's comments from your discussions and seeing that it doesn't reinstate them. Anomie⚔ 20:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks good. —Bkell (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I was actually looking at this this morning, particularly the comments at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 August 28#File:ACT Characters.jpg, and I wonder if PUI is really the best place for your questions anyway. Might WP:MCQ be better, e.g. like WP:MCQ#Problem with file with multiple copyrights? If you agree, I might reinstate a similar comment along the lines of "This image is currently tagged as both free and non-free. If it has a valid non-free-use rationale (or if the image is probably free) and the only question is clarification of license, please list it at WP:Media copyright questions instead. If it has a non-free-use rationale but the rationale is disputed, please list it at WP:Non-free content review. If the image has no rationale and is probably non-free, it should be listed here and this comment may be ignored.". Anomie⚔ 15:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I have always been under the impression that the purpose of PUF is to investigate the copyright status of files, as opposed to FFD, whose purpose is to directly discuss the deletion of files. Granted, the most common outcome at PUF seems to be that no one is able to clarify the copyright status, or the file is determined to be a copyright violation, so the file is deleted; but, as I understand it, PUF isn't meant to be just a subforum of FFD that exists to list files for deletion because of their copyright status. I guess I don't know what MCQ is supposed to be—I always thought of it as a kind of help desk for editors who need help understanding Wikipedia's copyright and tagging policies. So, from that perspective, it seemed to me that PUF is the most appropriate forum for this kind of discussion: the file has conflicting copyright tags, so some investigation into its copyright status is required, and that's what PUF is for, I thought. —Bkell (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that PUF is a forum for discussing files that are claimed to be free when this claim of freeness is in doubt, with an eye towards deleting the file if freeness cannot be proven or at least reasonably assumed. The WP:PUF introduction specifically excludes non-free files. MCQ is for general media copyright questions, with no deletion unless WP:CSD applies. There is some overlap, as the basic question "Is this image free?" is addressed by both pages. NFCR, of course, is for discussing the validity of non-free use rationales.
When the file is confusingly tagged as both free and non-free, there are a few possibile cases:
  • It has a fair-use rationale. PUF isn't intended for determining whether the rationale is valid or not, and neither answer to "Is this image free?" is going to lead to deletion. So it seems to me that NFCR is the place if the rationale is disputed, and MCQ is better if it's just a question as to which license tag is correct.
  • It has no fair-use rationale, but the freeness isn't doubted. PUF is for images where the freeness is currently doubted. Since deletion nominations where the nominator doesn't want deletion (and isn't acting on behalf of someone who wants deletion) strike me as pointy, I'd recommend MCQ.
  • It has no fair-use rationale, and freeness is in doubt. PUF is the place for these, as the image will either be deemed free, be deemed non-free and get a rationale, or be deleted (i.e. the same possible outcomes were the non-free tagging not present). MCQ isn't equipped to handle the "or be deleted".
It seems this all turns on whether the distinction between PUF and MCQ is that PUF asks for deletion while MCQ is just about questions, or if it is that PUF is for images already uploaded to Wikipedia and MCQ is for general questions or questions before uploading. Anomie⚔ 16:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
If a file is tagged both free and non-free, and its freeness is not in doubt, then I think the correct thing to do (whether or not there's a non-free use rationale) is just to remove the non-free tag (and rationale) and be done with it. There's no need for discussion in that case. (Actually, I think this also applies if a file is tagged both as public-domain and under some license like GFDL or CC—it doesn't make sense to be placing licensing restrictions on a public-domain image, so if I feel confident that the public-domain claim is valid, I just delete the licensing tags.)
The instructions for PUF say, "Unlike Wikipedia:Files for deletion the primary purpose of this page is to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of a file. Therefore it is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of a file…." I have always interpreted these statements to mean that listing an image on PUF is not a request for deletion, merely a request for a clarification of the source or copyright status. —Bkell (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Uptown Markham real source

I have check on this page article and in fact it is real see on this web site Official website I will add more source on this. Thank you Errorzerol (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Bhargava

References added. Please remove the tags.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT did not add any tags, it merely added |date= to tags that someone else added. Please check the history of whichever article you are talking about to find whoever actually added the tag. Anomie⚔ 10:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No more Wikify

{{Wikify}} has been depreciated. Might want to stop AnomieBOT from tagging wikify to articles. Bgwhite (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. As long as {{Wikify}} continues to add pages to Category:Articles that need to be wikified and that category is in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month, it should continue to be dated. Note also that the continued dating will help in your efforts to deprecate it: any new additions to Category:Articles that need to be wikified from September 2012‎ and future dated categories were added after deprecation. Anomie⚔ 10:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, Wikify was removed from AWB. I really appreciate your bot's work, thus your hard work. Bgwhite (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Automatically assess remaining WP Geology articles

WikiProject Geology would appreciate it if you would use the bot to rate all articles tagged by our project as Low importance if they have not yet been assigned an importance. The most up to date list of such articles is here; a few articles have since been rated, but I imagine the bot can retrieve the most current assessments. We have consensus. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello? RockMagnetist (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, been busy lately. Anomie⚔ 10:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not urgent, but I wanted to make sure this discussion doesn't get archived. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry it took so long. I finally found time to get this started, should be going in a little bit. Anomie⚔ 14:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad to hear it! I look forward to having a clean table. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Nothing seems to have happened yet. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
... Ok, that was stupid of me. I forgot to actually flip the on switch. Anomie⚔ 19:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I see it is done now. Thank you! Now if they could just get the WP 1.0 bot running ... RockMagnetist (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Bots need beer too!

Thanks for all the hard work and many, many auto ref repairs. I had totally missed my error in Billy Gray edit. Thanks again Jmg38 (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT, can I speak to you?

I think the bot is confused here.All the best. --E4024 (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

How so? Someone deleted the usage of the ref with the actual text, and the bot did exactly what it was supposed to do in copying that text to another usage of the ref. And then the user completed their removal. Anomie⚔ 00:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance tag dating bug

Can this edit and this one, both made by the bot, be checked? The maintenance tag dating function (particularly its edit summary) seems to have a problem. jfd34 (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The bot has correctly identified the month September from its misspelling Spetember. I don't see any error here. Also, why are you using dates from the past (April 2012) when you add issues to the template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Dating a multiple issues template should use a better edit summary such as "dating parameter xxx in {{multiple issues}}" rather than the summary shown in these edits. jfd34 (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
No bug here, and the (deprecated) parameter dated in {{multiple issues}} is already included. I'll consider whether changing the summary seems worthwhile. Anomie⚔ 17:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
And why did it remove a newline while correcting the date? jfd34 (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

cn span

Is it the new style for AnomieBot to place cn spans everywhere? What happened to the plain old cn? The red highlight it creates kind of looks odd to a reader in my opinion.

For example, here are the old cn's:

Bla bla bla[citation needed]

And here are the "new" cn spans:

Bla bla bla[citation needed]

Is this a new change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.241.86 (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT does not do this. Without any sort of link to where you claimed this happened, I can only guess that some human replaced a dated {{cn}} with an undated {{cn span}}, and then AnomieBOT dated it. Anomie⚔ 02:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
National Hurricane Center – at the top of the page. –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, just realized that AnomieBot simply dated it – just as you said. Again, sorry about that – thank you very much anyway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.241.86 (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Anomie⚔ 13:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Tag dating

This should probably be fixed, although minor.—cyberpower ChatOnline 16:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Note that {{afd-mergeto}} requires that parameter 3 be the debate closure date (which is formatted for humans and might not be parsable) and that |date= be the standard month and year for applying the correct subcategory of Category:Articles to be merged. Anomie⚔ 17:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Oops never mind. I forgot about the second dating tags that are required.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 17:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Current storm information

The ====Current storm information==== sections of hurricane pages never need references because there are always links to the NHC's latest Public Advisory and latest Forecast Discussion at the bottom. DOSGuy (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to 2012 Pacific hurricane season. Note that the tags were added by Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) in these edits; if you look closely at AnomieBOT's edit, you will see that the bot only added |date=September 2012 to the tags that Yellow Evan added. Anomie⚔ 18:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That makes more sense. DOSGuy (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Manusmriti

Please see the page now. It is better and needs removal of tags.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You should talk to Wikixosa (talk · contribs), who is the one who actually added the tags. AnomieBOT is just a computer program that (among other things) adds |date=May 2024 to tags added by human users. Anomie⚔ 16:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

ITN/C archival

There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Candidates#ITN.2FC_bot_archival_time regarding the amount of time that items are listed on ITN/C. If an arbitrary time limit (I think it is 5 days now?), can it be changed to 8 days? And if possible, could the bot be "programmed to retain (and de-archive) any date equal to or later than that of the oldest item appearing at Template:In the news"? Thanks, SpencerT♦C 19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Time changed to 8 days now. If you want any already-archived sections restored, do it manually. I'll have to look at the rest when I have time and see how possible it seems, but do note that "de-archiving" is very unlikely. Anomie⚔ 02:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! SpencerT♦C 05:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Another suggestion that I made, which I assume would be easier to implement, is a means of flagging a date or nomination so the bot will ignore it (e.g. a "do not archive" template). —David Levy 05:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

How to date talk page templates

It would be enormously helpful if {{BLP noticeboard}} templates are auto-dated. I added it here but the giant header in that section which reads "Mainspace rules" is making me wonder whether that will work for talk page templates? If not, please do the needful. Many thanks. —Cupco 01:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about AWB, but AnomieBOT is only approved to date tags in articles and in pages transcluded into articles, not in talk pages. And most of these dated tags don't even categorize non-article pages, so the bot wouldn't even be able to find them. But if there is really demand to expand to other namespaces, this could be done. Anomie⚔ 02:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, good to know. We're thinking about giving {{BLP noticeboard}} a month or so trial period to see how it gets used, so I'll hold off any automation requests for now. Please revert my addition to the AWB list if it was The Wrong Thing. —Cupco 03:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, it would be far better to simply add a new category to the template such as Category:Biographies of living people being discussed on the BLP Noticeboard than to ask you to go to any additional work to accomodate this request. I gather that would likely make this request trivial? —Cupco 03:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
All AnomieBOT does here is add |date= to templates listed at WP:AWB/DT, and a little special handling for a handful of other dated templates. If there's no need for {{BLP noticeboard}} to be dated, then I don't know what's going on here. Anomie⚔ 16:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This bot is showing in my watchlist

Resolved

This bot is showing in my watchlist, despite it being set not to show bots. Other bots only show up when I set my watchlist to show bots, which strongly suggests that the problem is with this bot and not the watchlist. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Some edits by certain bots should have human review, and therefore are made without the "bot" flag so humans are more likely to review them. Anomie⚔ 05:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange edits at User:AnomieBOT/PERTable

Hi, normally AnomieBOT only edits User:AnomieBOT/PERTable when there is an entry to add or remove, or there is a change to a page's protection to update. Today however, there have been approx. 100 edits where the only change was an amendment to the timestamp at the bottom. The first such instance was at 09:51, 13 September 2012 UTC, the most recent at 18:49, 13 September 2012‎. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that each new request generates a refresh, even if that request is on the same page as an existing request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Two or more simultaneous {{edit protected|ans=no}} on the same talk page? It's not been a problem before, even a few weeks ago when there was much activity at Talk:Douchebag or Talk:Rangers F.C. (see e.g. Archive 19). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What it looks like is that somehow the edit the bot made was not being read back identically five minutes later... Ah hah, found it! In the summary for the protection on Iphone five, the pipe trick was used. So on save MediaWiki expanded the link from [[WP:SALT|]] to [[WP:SALT|SALT]], so of course the bot then tried to turn it back to [[WP:SALT|]] five minutes later. Anomie⚔ 03:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Another strange edit

Hi, how come Talk:New York International Independent Film and Video Festival#editprotected was listed today, and not before? The talk page hasn't been edited since January 2009, and the {{edit protected}} was placed over five years ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the redirect {{edit-protected}} was just created today, until today it was a redlinked template on that talk page. Anomie⚔ 01:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBot tagging info-boxes

Is AnomieBot supposed to tag info-boxes with a date? Here are recent examples: iOS 5 and iOS 6. –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If the infobox is listed at WP:AWB/DT, as {{Infobox OS version}} is, yes. This is done when the infobox itself takes a |date= to automatically apply {{cn}} tags when a reference is not provided for some bit of information, e.g. the "Initial release", "Stable release", and "Preview release" fields in {{Infobox OS version}}. Anomie⚔ 10:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In {{Infobox OS version}}, there are three parameters for which an associated parameter is also required. (i) If |first_release_date= is present, |first_release_url= must also be filled in; (ii) if |release_version= is present, |release_url= must also be filled in; (ii) if |preview_version= is present, |preview_url= must also be filled in. If the first of any pair is present but the second is not, a |date= parameter must be supplied instead.
For the specific case of iOS 5 there are |first_release_date={{Start date and age|2011|10|12}} and |release_version=5.1.1 but both |first_release_url= and |release_url= are blank.
Similarly, iOS 6 has |first_release_date={{Start date and age|2012|09|19}} and |release_version=6.0 but both |first_release_url= and |release_url= are blank. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you to both of you. –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed template misuse

Hello! I wanted to ask whether AnomieBOT could cope with Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters backlog. This category is filled with {{citation needed}} occurrences with unnamed parameters. The cases boil down to three cases:

  1. empty parameter;
  2. date is specified as first unnamed parameter (eg. {{citation needed|September 2012|date=September 2012}});
  3. comment is placed (the documentation suggests using |reason= instead.

So the bot should detect the first two cases and strip the parameter, while in the rest of cases it should prepend |reason=. I also came across the hybrid usage ({{citation needed|reason=some comment|date=DATE}}), which should be acted upon accordingly. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It could, likely with the same code as last time, but since the TFD was closed as "no consensus" I can't use the bot's existing approval. I also wonder where exactly this is going, or is it just edits for the sake of cleaning up something that has no effect anyway? Anomie⚔ 10:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Though I have several goals in mind (restarting TFD after some time and making the "reason" contents visible), right now this is not headed particularly at any change, as nothing is pending in the near future anyway. Just a cleanup. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessarily rigourous standard for cn

For citation needed, why is "date=" required and BOT maintained? Both of the following examples should work: 

{{citation needed|date=October 2012}}
[citation needed] 
{{citation needed|date=October 2012}}
[citation needed]

… unless there is a antoher reason for the second argument of the tag that is rarely (if ever) used.[clarification needed]
Regardless, how much space and effort would be saved with every cn related edit, and BOT adjustment, with the removal of such inefficient implementation of the redundant "date=" assignment? JimsMaher (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Two reasons: first, omitting the |date= parameter fails to populate Category:Articles with unsourced statements from October 2012; second, using a positional parameter puts the page into Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
And, quite simply, the template is written to take the date in the "date" parameter, not in the first unnamed parameter or any other parameter. If you don't want the bot correcting it for you, do it right in the first place. Note also that some other maintenance templates also use the first unnamed parameter for their own purposes, and it tends to be less confusing if all maintenance templates that require a date use the same parameter for the date. Anomie⚔ 01:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I suppose my concern isn't with bots or other templates in this case, but with the implementation that set a required "date=" assignment to a parameter that would otherwise be empty for all other purposes (as far as I'm aware, again please inform me if there is a parameter other than a date that ever accompanies the citation needed tag). As such, for the citation needed tag specifically, declaring an assignment seems redundant and therefore inefficient. If you're saying this is outweighed by cutting a couple checks from a few maintenance bots, then I'm not sure where you're coming from. Please tell me that my interpretation is incorrect. JimsMaher (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, {{citation needed}} doesn't use that parameter. But {{citation needed span}} does use it, and {{cleanup}} and several other templates use it for an entirely different purpose, and so on. Consistency is helpful so human users don't have to remember which idiosyncratically named parameter is used by each individual maintenance template. Anomie⚔ 20:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

inadvertently hiding vandalism

This kind of edit hides this kind of vandalism so that many/most editors won't notice it and will be incapable of fixing it later because undo won't work if there are intermediate edits. --Espoo (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the box at the top of this page with the heading "Regarding the OrphanReferenceFixer and TagDater, please note:". Thanks. Anomie⚔ 19:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The solution seems to be obvious, at least to a layperson like me: Prevent the bot from fixing a malformed date if a lot of content has just been deleted by the same or a previous edit that produced the malformed date. Or at least wait 24 hours.
A different issue is that i'm confused by the template "Use dmy dates|date=February 2012" at the top of that page. The format after the = sign is clearly month year, not dmy. And i have no idea what the template does.--Espoo (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
{{Use dmy dates}} is mainly an indication to those bots and scripts which alter date formats that when a date is found in another format, it should be amended to the dmy form. It's mostly documented on the template page, but the |date=October 2012 parameter isn't - that shows when the {{use dmy dates}} was added to the article, and in common with most dated maintenance templates, gives month and year only: it places the page into Category:Use dmy dates from October 2012. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Note that 500 bytes is actually rather small when someone is doing a cleanup to an article, and the detection of which edit "added" the malformed date is more complicated than you might expect, requiring a potentially large number of queries to the server that are not really justified by the scale of the problem versus the scale of the task. And as has been discussed many times in the past, waiting long periods of time would prevent the bot from ever editing any moderately-busy article, which are the articles most likely to need the bot's services. Sorry, but no. Just revert the bot's edit along with the vandal's. Anomie⚔ 22:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
"waiting long periods of time would prevent the bot from ever editing any moderately-busy article" - Would it be difficult to add a parameter that makes the wait depend on how busy the article is? Reverting vandalism along with the bot's edit is no problem on busy pages since there are many experienced editors there. Articles that are not busy will often be edited by inexperienced editors who know nothing about undo or even about the page history, and these will mess things up by manually fixing only some damage. --Espoo (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ibid tagging

Dunno, if your bot is based on AWB, but this article was falsely tagged: op. cit. was removed of the {{ibid}} ~ a year ago, because it reference similar to the Harvard style to a direct citation. Please remove op cit from the list and/or of AWB's list. Regards, mabdul 21:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Hi Mabdul! Look closely at the diff you provided, and you'll see that AnomieBOT just added a date to the {{Ibid}} tag. The tag was added in the previous edit by another editor. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
HHHmmm, this was a really long working day. I need sleep... mabdul 23:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Bot

Your bot did'nt seem to get this one right. Regards Eselmel (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT did fine; it's BattyBot that screwed up in the previous edit. Anomie⚔ 10:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

{{underconstruction}}

Would your bot respect the {{underconstruction}} and not editing the page with that tag please? mabdul 14:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

{{underconstruction}} specifically invites other editors to assist in the page's construction. If you want a template that asks other editors not to edit, use {{in creation}} or {{in use}}. Anomie⚔ 16:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Refs shouldn't automatically come from other articles

I disagree that you should automatically use references from other articles, even if they link to said page It's very possible for two articles to have the same ref name for different content.

If there is any other check being done to make sure this doesn't happen, you might want to edit User:AnomieBOT/docs/OrphanReferenceFixerto include the other criteria. As it is worded now, an article Bar that links to Foo, where Bar has a ref name "Boo" and Foo accidentally also has a ref name Boo that is not defined, the bot will always copy over the info from Foo, even if the reason Bar has a broken ref is not due to copying from Foo. — trlkly 10:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What other reason might there be for Bar to have a broken ref named "Boo" besides copying from Foo or another related article, or from having a ref named "Boo" in its own history (which the bot checks before checking linked articles), or perversity on the part of an editor? Anomie⚔ 12:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Please state where it is specified that a name must not be assigned to a footnote if the source is only cited once? Perhaps an editor expects to cite the source several times in future edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

False alarm

This edit seems to presume that it is an error to give a name to a footnote that is only used once. But I am not aware of any instruction to editors telling them not to do that. So I regard this message as a false alarm. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The bot's message is saying that it tried to find text for the reference named "Europa1842" (from this big red error, that is now fixed) by looking in related articles, and found three different references in different related articles all using that name, so it is asking a human to pick which one to use. I have no clue how you got from that to what you are complaining about here. Anomie⚔ 22:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't understand what the bot was complaining about; it might have helped if the bot had included a link to the version of the article that included the error. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Globalize tag question

I noticed this bot added the {Globalize/US} tag to the 2012 State Petitions for Secession page. The article itself deals solely with a subject matter within the United States, generated by its citizens, so I am a little unsure how to give it "worldview". Please advise. Coinmanj (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it didn't. The tag was added in the previous edit by Saojld (talk · contribs). If you look carefully at AnomieBOT's edit, you'll see that it only added |date=November 2012 to the tag that was already there. In this particular case, I'd suggest just removing the tag, since the article is specifically about a US-related topic without opportunity for much "worldwide" view beyond a few bullet points in a "reactions" section. Anomie⚔ 03:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Bug

When a reference on an article has content defined in a template on that article, AnomieBOT does not treat it as an orphaned reference (which is correct). However, if there is also a real orphaned reference on that article, AnomieBOT corrects (or attempts to correct) both. Double sharp (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

interference with template messages

I added "It has been suggested that this article be split into multiple articles. (Discuss)".

to the Tibetan Buddhism article, as per Wikipedia guidelines. This bot disrupted compliance with those guidelines by removing the message. I've added it again. I've tried to see how to disable the bot, but it's too arcane. Just waiting for the bot nazi to crash the party again.

Moonsell (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't AnomieBOT, it was Merigar (talk · contribs), see this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks Aldo samulo (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
AnomieBOT thanks you. Anomie⚔ 22:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

John Moschiita, Jr page

Hi....I am John Moschitta, Jr. and someone deleted the bulk of the copy on the John Moschitta Jr page today. If that was you please restore it. The information is accurate and should not have been deleted. Thanks John JMthe2nd (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The information was removed by Yworo (talk · contribs) in this edit. Please note that information in Wikipedia articles about living persons must be supported by reference to reliable sources. Also note that you do not "own" the article about yourself; please see the section "Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest" in Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline for advice on how to constructively edit in such a situation. Anomie⚔ 12:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Jay Westervelt

AnomieBOT's absence of human editing skills has caused this program to overlook key references contained in linked material, while this program then questions sources that are, in fact, directly linked to the article.

Meadowlarkmelon (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to this edit, AnomieBOT did not add the tags. They were added in the previous edit by Barek (talk · contribs). If you were referring to something else, your post was far too vague for me to determine what it might have been. Anomie⚔ 23:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Feature request perhaps

Is there any way for AnomieBOT to notice the "Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism" on the previous edit and leave that for a human editor to deal with? 28bytes (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure.  Done. But note if anyone makes an edit so the tagged revision is no longer the top revision, then AnomieBOT will date the tags. Anomie⚔ 01:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Wow, such quick work! Thank you! 28bytes (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving/Swapping DELSORT queue

Hello Anomie. There are a couple of name changes being proposed at WT:DS#Name change, and I was wondering if there's anything we should take into account regarding AnomieBOT's task if they are implemented. I imagine that in addition to swapping the pages, we'd also have to move the archive to the new name, but I thought it'd be better to double check — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Make sure Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact gets updated, and if you move the existing page be sure to also move the archives. Anomie⚔ 18:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, will do — Frankie (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Mistaken reference save....

[8] was Anomie saving a Facebook ref, which it should not have been doing per RS. MSJapan (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, that was AnomieBOT, not Anomie. Second, the bot knows nothing about WP:RS, or even the English language for that matter; it just cleans up when someone deletes the copy of the ref with the reference text while leaving other uses of that ref in the article. The correct thing to do in a case like the one you link is to finish the job that someone else didn't complete correctly by removing all uses of the problematic ref, and then talk to that person about it. Anomie⚔ 17:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Tim Huelskamp

Looks like there was a bit of an error on the ref fix. It created a cite error and covered up a bit of vandalism on a BLP article: [9][10]. Just thought you should know, in case there's something that can be done about this going forward. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

Hi, I see you updated the Citation Needed tags on the Khmer clothing article. I did not know that I was supposed to put the date in the tag. Sorry about the confusion. Hope it didn't make any more work for the bot, but now I know better! Cheers. wia (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it too much, that's exactly what bots are for. Anomie⚔ 00:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou!

for the Mental Disorder tag fix (JCJC777 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC))

A beer for you!

Bender (another famous bot) likes beer - I hope you do too. Thanks for rescuing the refs I orphaned on Raising Hope. Jmg38 (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

turtle

turtles
hello TurtleBrine160 (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Marvellous

I am in awe of AnomieBOT. From one Perl programmer to another, kudos. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! What sort of Perl programming do you do? Anomie⚔ 10:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Oops, never got around to replying to you! I spent a decade doing web development in Perl, plus wrote a few bits and bobs for CPAN now and then. Even though I'm not in the field any more, I still love the language. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT after three years

I am not generally a great fan of BOTs because I notice quite a bit of harm they do (and probably am unaware of the good they do). However, whenever I spot AnomieBOT it seems to have been working reliably and usefully. I welcomed it recovering a reference of mine back in 2009[11] and just now it has restored someone else's reference which I had carelessly removed.[12] It is time for a second thank you! Thincat (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Three phase electric power

Your input may be valuable [here]. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor review feature request

Hello Anomie, and thank you as ever for the wonderful hunk-o-code that is AnomieBOT. :) I have a feature request for AnomieBOT's handling of Wikipedia:Editor review if you have some spare time and the inclination. Would it be possible for the bot to include a link to the edit review subpages in its edit summary when it adds and removes them from Wikipedia:Editor review? At the moment the edit summary things like "Listing 1 new review and correcting page formatting." I was thinking of something like "Listing Wikipedia:Editor review/Mr. Stradivarius and correcting page formatting." This would be very handy for monitoring new review requests from the watchlist. It's not urgent at all, so don't worry about it if you're busy. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I suppose there could be problems if someone chose a very long page name for their subpage, or if multiple reviews are added at once. Maybe we could default to an edit summary with no links if the one with links would be too long? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to find time to look into this. Shouldn't be too hard, I think, but I've been very busy lately. Anomie⚔ 02:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

義士祭

今日は義士祭ですね。やはり、子打たれよ、親打たれよ、それ乗り越え乗り越え戦う、東男についてどう思われますか？？--えいえすあい (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Wnote 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⚡ 23:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Kitten

Kitten
Hey!!! Kitty Grint (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Merging

May I ask you why this article is going to be merged into One Day International--Pratyya (have a chat?) 10:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that AnomieBOT just added |date=December 2012 to that tag; you should discuss the matter with Wakowako (talk · contribs), who actually added the merge tag. Anomie⚔ 11:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Mistaken BLP tag

AnomieBOT tagged a long-dead poet as BLP in this edit. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No it didn't - that edit merely added dates to existing banners. The {{BLP sources}} was added with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
You're right, of course. Sorry for bothering you – Fayenatic London 16:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT deleted my edits and most of the prior article "Lemon Andersen" -- Why and what do I do now?

!-- AnomieBOT deleted my edits and most of the prior article Lemon Andersen -- Why and what do I do now? Please see History and advise here or on the article's talk page or at my user talk page. ThanksErasistratus1 (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) deleted nothing. All it did was add |date=December 2012 to an existing {{citation needed}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. In any case, for quite some time I could not manage to get the original article back. Then it mysteriously reappeared. In any event, I am approaching closure on a major rewrite (all but citations, which I'll add in the next few days) of this article, so that it will no longer be a stub. If it's okay, I may ask you to look at it after this weekend, at which point I'll probably have a focused question or two. In any case, thanks for replying -- Joe--Erasistratus1 (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Looking back through the page history, I see that the problem was caused by the edit immediately before the AnomieBOT edit. Here, two {{Citation needed}} were added - one was dated, the other wasn't. AnomieBOT noticed the undated one, and dated it. But notice also that the two {{Citation needed}} were added at the same points that two </ref> were removed. The second of these was a valid removal, but the first wasn't, since it was the closing tag for the <ref> in this fragment: 
a Norwegian-American from [[Bensonhurst, Brooklyn]]<ref>{{cite news |title=When Life Names You Lemon ...
Every <ref> must be balanced by a </ref>, and any text between those is not displayed in the main article text, but in the references section. The next </ref> that the MediaWiki parser encountered was here:
don't take my [[Air Jordan|Air Jordans]]" </ref> in December 2012,
, so that was the point at which normal text display resumed. Therefore, the text in the paragraph beginning "Andersen's writing and performances have received" were treated as part of the unclosed <ref> and displayed as part of ref. 1.
More information at WP:REFBEGIN and WP:CITEFOOT. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

BAGBot: Cannot find operator of VoxelBot

I could not find the operator of the bot in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VoxelBot. I look for '''Operator:''' with a wikilink to the User or User talk namespace on the same line. Please fix it! Thanks. 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⚡ 19:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Tag dating

Tagging {{cn}} with the date is fine, but there's no reason for {{rp}} to be dated. Angr (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

See #Template Rp above. Anomie⚔ 03:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Template Rp

Which is the aim for this BOT to add "|date=November 2012" in the occurrences of Template:Rp? For example see here: Book of Enoch. The request of date should be used only when Template Rp has the field "needed=y" (i.e. only when the template displays "page needed"), otherwise it is useless because the template is simply adding a page to a ref. A ntv (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that shouldn't have happened. And in testing so far, I can't get it to happen again when run over the very same page, although I see the running bot just did do it again. I'll have to do more testing later to find out WTF is going on here. Anomie⚔ 16:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, it did it again, here, at 21:56, 29 December 2012. It also put "date=" on a "Dead link" template, which may be the key to the problem. I will remove the "date=" markers from the rp's. AWhiteC (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Found the bug, should be fixed now. Thanks for reporting it. Anomie⚔ 03:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Well done! Teamwork! AWhiteC (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Delay of a week or a month

Hi,

When your bot adds fields to my tags (e.g. date field to a fact tag), it triggers the notification that someone has edited the page. (My edit is no longer "(top)") This makes me check to see if someone found a problem with my contribution, but then I see it's just the bot. That wastes my time, and it also means I've then no easy way to see if someone has made a real edit to the article since my edit.

This breaks part of MediaWiki's system for tracking changes to an article, thus making life a little less easy for editors.

This can be fixed by adding a delay of a week or so. This delay has no negative side effect. The date field on a fact tag, added now or in a week's time, in practice, is the same.

In cases such as this, where it's just adding an optional field to a tag, there's definitely no reason to rush to add it. In most other cases, there's still no big justification for a rush.

I can think of two ways to add a delay. Either:

  1. Continue using the current method for finding new changes, but instead of acting immediately, put a note in a file for things to do in 7 days time; or
  2. Instead of scanning changes that have been made just now, scan for changes that were made 7 days ago.

7 days might be too short. A month might be better.

I hope you'll fix this. It would make Wikipedia a more pleasant place. Thanks. Gronky (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

See previous discussions on this topic. Doing this would destroy the usefulness of the bot. Anomie⚔ 00:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Doing this also wouldn't solve the problem, but instead move it 7 days or a month into the future. I find that the best way to not have the issue is to take the extra few seconds to type the |date= parameter. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Not at all . At one point SmackBot used to run a few times a month. Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

WikiProject Brands and AnomieBOT

Hello Anomie: I'm looking to utilize AnomieBOT to perform automatic tagging for the categories (and subcategories within them) that WikiProject Brands covers. I'm writing to inquire about how this can be accomplished in unison with the bot's WikiProjectTagger function. This would be very helpful, because manually adding the tags is quite time-consuming. I look forward to the prospect of obtaining your input regarding this matter, and I'll watchlist this page. Also feel free to leave a talkback template on my talk page upon your reply. Thanks for your consideration! Northamerica1000(talk) 13:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I fixed 100 cite errors...

...over at Overview of the Arab Spring by carefully working out which references were no longer needed. If I had deleted all the named references, would AnomieBOT have done the job for me by recovering just the references that were still needed? -- John of Reading (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Good work!
AnomieBOT would sort of have done the job: it would have copied the references inline into the body of the article, rather than keeping the WP:LDR style currently in use. Also, while it doesn't seem to apply to that article, AnomieBOT does not recognize silly templates like {{r}} or {{sfn}} that hide the <ref> tag behind a template invocation. Anomie⚔ 02:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah well. Fortunately cases like that don't turn up in CAT:REF very often. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

DRV Recent

For some reason the bot hates the last two logs for December. That's all well and good but its hiding the outcome of a couple of discussions that need to be reviewable. Spartaz Humbug! 14:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

December 31 is empty, which is why it's not being shown. As for December 30, in this edit and this edit you changed the code substed by {{DRV top}} so the bot no longer recognized the page as having any archived discussions on it.
Also, BTW, if you want you can leave removing the headers from archived discussions to the bot. It will do it automatically when all discussions are closed and it has been more than 24 hours since the last edit to the page. Anomie⚔ 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WP Brands – Lists compiled for project banner tagging using AnomieBOT

A discussion is occurring at the talk page for WikiProject Brands at Proceeding with automatic project banner tagging using AnomieBOT regarding moving forward with automatic talk page tagging with the project's banner using AnomieBOT. All members of this project will be notified with neutrally-worded notifications about this discussion, and please feel free to contribute to it. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

  • People at the discussion are in agreement to commence with automatic banner tagging. Is there anything else I need to do to move forward? Northamerica1000(talk) 19:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please repeat

AnomieBot inserted some useful references on the page Journey into Space on 10 January. Sadly this was a heavily vandalised version of the page. I have just restored the pre-10 January version: the mess was really complex and this was the only good way to do it. Please could AnomieBot revisit and improve the references again? Thanks Andrew Dalby 14:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

AnomieBOT didn't actually "improve" the references, it just restored the reference texts that the vandal deleted. Since you reverted the whole mess (which was the correct thing to do), there's nothing for AnomieBOT to do there anymore. Anomie⚔ 01:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding more reference to Rahul Easwar.

Have added more reference to this article. Interview of him and media coverage substantiating the facts given in the article. Thanks and regards (Alex.mathews (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC))

Thank you

For instructing the bot to do things like this. I checked to make sure that I wasn't removing any named references in the previous edit, but it's plainly too easy to overlook a mistake, so it's helpful to have a bot to do the cleaning up. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect

I've just finished one of this type of task and erased the call. AnomieBOT came through and restored that call. I'm guessing that just reverting the edit won't help. The articles are Temperate Climate and Temperateness, and I can't figure out how to turn her off. Any help is appreciated. Watchwolf49z (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Diffs? It looks like you may be being confused by edits made by Subtropical-man (talk · contribs). Anomie⚔ 00:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad linked references template

I made a new cleanup tag, {{Bad linked references}}. Please can you add it to the list of templates that you datestamp? Cheers, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy's template had problems with grammar and prolixity. Please review the template, to ensure its adequacy and propriety.
It's also ungrammatically named. "Bad" modifies "linked" and so should be "badly". Perhaps somebody could move it, please?
Andy has been using it to tag bomb articles, disrupting them rather than editing them or diagnosing problems on talk pages. If its use is limited to only the DGM issue, then a specific template should be created. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Please take the argument between the two of you elsewhere. This page is not the place for it. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 16:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Instructions for properly creating a new dated maintenance category are at Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category. Section 3 mentions what to do to get your templates dated, but do review section 2 as well as it appears that you have not created any of the necessary categories. Anomie⚔ 16:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Doing that now. That guide is relatively new, and didn't exist the last time I created a maintenance template, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we're good to go, now, but please check, as it's my first time, doing this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't check for language or typos, but from a technical standpoint it looks good. I see AnomieBOT has already started dating the tags, and should create the category for January 2013 on the next DatedCategoryCreator run. Anomie⚔ 17:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, AnomieBOT. You have new messages at Talk:The_Joker_(Heath_Ledger).
Message added 08:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I know you don't recognize Template:Talkback, yet no problem in adding one. I can expect in next ten fifteen years artificial intelligence will become more intelligent and will be able to communicate, please see the message then! Tito Dutta (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DEBORAH1111

Hi there, Thank you for stoping by the page I have created, I have evaluated some of the references. there are 60 references which I have refered to and all are refered to newspapers, articles, journals, websites, books in diffrent languages maybe thats why it seems a little unusual. Thank you again.DEBORAH1111 (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Addshore

He is now a member of BAG. You may want to make that adjustment to your bot.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The bot reads the list from WP:BAG. Anomie⚔ 01:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
How often does it read because it doesn't seem to be recognizing it.—cyberpower ChatOnline 01:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It checks every run. Why do you think it's not recognizing it? Note that it doesn't "count" when a BAGger edits their own BRFA. Anomie⚔ 02:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah well in that case, never mind.—cyberpower ChatOnline 02:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Images

Here you can download pictures if their author will do it?--90.155.142.140 (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 25

Hi AnomieBOT, I note that all files except File:Cheneysnotes.jpg have been deleted. Is File:Cheneysnotes.jpg in a satisfactory status that its nomination for deletion tag may be removed? Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 11:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The {{ffd}} tag should not be removed from the image until the deletion discussion is closed. Anomie⚔ 16:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and closed it now. Anomie⚔ 17:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Forward dates

I have just deleted Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from September 2013, Category:Articles to be expanded from December 2013 and others with forward dates. It is utterly pointless to create a page with a speedy tag already active in it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the bot doesn't create these categories "with a speedy tag already active in it". The speedy tag gets added automatically when someone fixes/removes the incorrectly-dated tag on whatever article was in the category. But I will look into checking that it's not creating these categories too far in advance. Anomie⚔ 15:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
That should do it. Anomie⚔ 18:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Appears not, Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from August 2013 has just been created. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Articles containing potentially dated statements" is the exception, because people tend to use future-looking press releases with {{as of}}. For example, some television company announces their show as been renewed for 10 more episodes which will air in September and October, so someone comes along and puts "X+10 episodes ({{as of|October 2013}})". Anomie⚔ 12:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Brands

How in any way is JW Marriott Las Vegas‎? It is a hotel operation! Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess WP Brands considers it in their scope because it's a brand-name hotel. I suggest you ask them, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands. Anomie⚔ 12:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 5

The bot added a notice that a file has been renamed,[13] but there should ideally be a line break between this line and the notification line added by the bot. Also, the line beginning with "span class" also contains references to the old file name which should probably be updated. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the linebreak, should be fixed now. I'd rather not worry about messing with others' comments, though. Anomie⚔ 13:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Renault?

Hello, I noticed that Renault R35 was recently added to Project:Brands. The Renault R35 is a French tank of the Second World War. Isn't that a little outside of project Brand's scope? Or have similar tags been added to, say Boeing B-17? Howicus (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Also Talk:British Rail Class 155 - British Rail is the brand, Class 155 is just one of several hundred types of train used by British Rail - so why have Talk:British Rail Class 01, Talk:British Rail Class 02 etc. all the way up to Talk:British Rail Class 960 not been similarly treated?
Not sure about Talk:BSA Gold Star, Talk:Leyland Atlantean either: BSA and Leyland are the brands, Gold Star and Atlantean are their products. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
See #Brands above. Anomie⚔ 01:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, no big deal. Just seemed a little strange to me. Howicus (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oatmeal

How is oatmeal a brand? Rmhermen (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

See #Brands and #Renault? above. Anomie⚔ 12:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Amber Brooks

The bot added a notice of a 2006 AfD discussion at the talk page for Amber Brooks. From the tone of the old AfD discussion, it would appear to have been about a self-promoting stripper, who is very unlikely to be the same person as the current subject of the page, a professional soccer player who would have been 15 years old in 2006. I deleted the comment, but I'm posting here to make sure it doesn't pop up again. Cheers. Tdslk (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It would only pop up again if the page gets deleted and recreated. The bot obviously has no idea what the deleted article might have been about, it just puts the notice on the talk page to make it easier for humans to check the past AFD. Anomie⚔ 02:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hiding vandalism ain't cool

Please see [14] and the recent history of Environmental ethics. Yeah, I'm gripin' - seen this kind of bot problem many times over the years. Maybe tell the bot to raise a flag if following an ip edit? Cheers :) Vsmith (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see the note in the box at the top of the page. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 03:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

NewArticleAFDTagger false positive

NewArticleAFDTagger tagged Talk:Dan Kelley with oldafdmulti. Obviously, the bot had no way of knowing that the article that was deleted was for a different Dan Kelley. I just removed the tag, but wonder if a note should be added to the NewArticleAFDTagger section of User:AnomieBOT#Current saying to remove any old AfD tags that are about a different subject than the new article? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not really the place for it, but I did add a note at the top of this page and in the editnotice. Anomie⚔ 03:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

bizarre screwup

I love this bot, but this[15] is just bizarre. There was an orphaned ref, "Publications p 93", which was properly restored. However, there was another ref, "e16", which was not orphaned but was restored anyway – and it was restored from a different article (Gujarati), which had nothing to do with it! This could be a real problem.

Yikes! That Gujarati ref was not actually for Gujarati, but moved by AnomieBOT from the Tamil article![16] So the bot moved a note on the number of Tamil speakers in India to the article on the Shina language of Pakistan, a note which was factually false when removed from its parent article.

Can we do a scan of AnomieBOT's edit history for the past year or so, and find any more instances of "rescuing" <e16> from some other article?

Ideally, most of the 5,000 of our language articles will have a refs titled "e16" (and in another year, "e17") for the population figures from Ethnologue. These are sometimes linked from the text as well, only to be orphaned when we update the population figures from a better source. If AnomieBOT sees them as equivalent across articles, we're going to have a real mess on our hands.

As for fixing them automatically, AnomieBOT could replicate the behaviour of the language infobox, which is to create an Ethnologue link from the {{E16}} template, using the iso3 and lc-n fields of the infobox for parameters. ({{E17}} will be equivalent, once the 17th edition of Ethnologue comes out this year.)

(There will be a problem if it's the E16 population figure that's ref'd in the text, rather than some other detail such as range or script. But that's a mess for live editors to clean up.) — kwami (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added code to skip any ref with a name consisting of an 'E' followed by one or more digits. I'll see about generating the list of rescues. Anomie⚔ 03:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't look like there are any more that aren't already fixed. The full list of edits since 2012-01-01 with summaries containing "orphaned refs" and the letter 'E' followed by one or more digits in quotes is at [17]. Anomie⚔ 04:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding why AnomieBOT "rescued" the e16 ref, it's because AnomieBOT has no way of knowing when a reference is provided inside some random template in the page. It just scans for <ref> and {{#tag:ref}}. The same sort of thing happens with random templates like {{sfn}} that people insist on creating. Anomie⚔ 03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Actually, the only name you need to worry about is e16, and just possibly e15. Later this year probably e17. So you could narrow it down to "e1X", and that would have prevented those false positives. Can't be certain they all have quotes, though.
The reason you only have to worry about those is that they are automated: the parameters "e15" and "e16" auto-generate refs with those names. e15 is only used in a few articles where we ref the old edition of Ethnologue for some reason: the 16th was already out when we added this function, so e15 was never used as a general ref, and as we see AnomieBOT has never picked up on one of them. When the 17th ed. comes out this year, we'll add support for that too, but it's not encoded yet. So I think you're safe having AnomieBOT ignore only e16 and e17.
It would be fine to rescue from within the article, as at Bravanese. In that case it was a manual addition that just had the same name as the automated one, so the normal AnomieBOT script solved it perfectly. — kwami (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Anomie, how does {{sfn}} cause problems? Sure, it generates a named ref; but that named ref is not dependent upon the existence of another identically-named ref elsewhere. If an article contains two instances of {{sfn|Smith|2008|p=12}}, they're both named - but I can remove either one and the article still works - no AnomieBOT rescue is needed. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
But if someone does go and make a <ref> for whatever name {{sfn}} generates. Anomie⚔ 13:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
AnomieBOT will still rescue them within an article, it will just ignore them when looking for same-named refs in linked articles. Anomie⚔ 13:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Caught one on Luther Jackson page ☻Cafeolay2☻ (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

breaking references

In this edit, AnomieBOT stomped over a valid reference with an unrelated text. I suspect it is because {{singlechart}} creates the reference named "Australia". {{singlechart|Australia|2|artist=One Direction|song=Live While We're Young|accessdate=19 October 2012|refname="Australia"}} is invoked, and that certainly creates the reference, as you can see in this version, where I undid AnomieBot to repair the problem.—Kww(talk) 23:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If you need me to, it will be easy enough for me to create a category that contains all articles where singlechart has been explicitly told to name the reference. I've been finding the references stomped on with extraneous things periodically, and I suspect that AnomieBot not reconizing the refs I create is the cause.—Kww(talk) 23:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
AnomieBOT recognizes references created with <ref> or with {{#tag:ref}}. It doesn't recognize references created by the myriad silly little templates people make to avoid having to type "<ref>". Anomie⚔ 00:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
There are over 8000 invocations of {{singlechart}} in use on Wikipedia. It's not acceptable for you to corrupt the references that it generates. It uses {{#tag:ref}} inside. You will have to determine a way for it to stop corrupting the references.—Kww(talk) 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking at this further. Why are you examining the wikisource for the ref instead of seeing whether <sup id="cite_ref-....." class="reference"> exists in the generated html? That would prevent the bot from corrupting the articles and keep the bot from caring precisely how the reference was generated. There's no way to change {{singlechart}} (or {{albumchart}}, supported by User:Hahc21) to not interfere with the bot. They both generate the reference internal to the template in the middle of the output stream.

The problem here is that it's extremely difficult to track down that this has happened. Someone builds an article, and names the generated references so they can use them in the article body. Everything is fine until another editor comes in later and adds a reference with a broken name, which is followed by the bot coming in and corrupting the good references in a vain effort to fix a problem with the bad reference.—Kww(talk) 06:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I should let Anomie speak for himself, but please realise that this is a really nightmarish problem for bot ops to solve. Retrieving the generated HTML is very slow and resource-consuming. A good option would be to place all templates that generate named references into a particular category; then AnomieBOT could fetch a list of the category's members from time to time, and then ?ignore the templates? skip the article? resort to generated HTML?
Sorry, just felt like I needed to say that. Back to you Anomie... — This, that and the other (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, TTO. It's worse than that, actually. We can't rely on the rendered HTML actually containing the name of the ref as part of the footnote target, and AnomieBOT needs the wikitext to be able to rescue the refs. But I did add some code to detect which missing refs in the current revision seem to be defined by these silly templates so the bot can avoid trying to rescue them. But if someone removes the template, it can't detect that the template provided the ref in a previous revision. Anomie⚔ 13:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
That will be enough, because you couldn't replace the template based on the knowledge you have. I wish you would stop referring the the template as "silly", though. We have the problem that the major chart archivers keep changing the syntax of the URLs. The official charts company has done things like mandate the use of trailing slashes on URLs after originally forbidding them, others have changed directory hierarchies, all kinds of things. When people use the template, I can deal with the site changes with one edit and propagate it to the articles. It keeps the refs accurate, which I hope both of us believe is important.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Chorlton

you deleted my reference to Chorlton based photographer Harry Goodwin, who is every bit a famous in photography as Jim Noir is to music or Warren Clark is to acting. Can you advise why this evidence supported sentenence was removed? thank you AlexarturWalsh (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

AnomieBOT did not delete any reference to anything. If you're talking about this edit by me rather than AnomieBOT, feel free to redo your edit; I have no idea what happened there, I just removed the one space to fix the end-comment tag near the top of the article. BTW, why did you enclose your post here in comment tags? Anomie⚔ 10:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Your talk page header says "(a <!-- comment --> is fine for that purpose)", and the user wanted to leave a comment... — This, that and the other (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The full sentence says: "If you would like Anomie to use {{talkback}} to notify you, please say so (a <!-- comment --> is fine for that purpose)." GoingBatty (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah but I'm thinking from the new user's perspective; they don't understand the first bit of the sentence and only understand the last, so that's the only part they heed. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
yes that's right, so thanks and sorry if i went about things the wrong wayAlexarturWalsh (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bravo!

I find this rescue an amazing feat. Bravo! -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! People only tend to tell me when it picks the wrong thing, it's good to hear it works right sometimes. Anomie⚔ 12:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

for your rescue of my referencing error on John Tilley. Mugginsx (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

2012 end-of-year women's rugby union tests

This article is outdated because it referes to some events in last year. Instead of adding these useless messages, you should contribute to wikipedia with some other more interesting articles or information! Creating and keeping update the articles - if it's possible - requires a hard work and a lot of time... Killer4979 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I assume you refer to this edit. All that AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) did was to add a date to an {{update}} that had been added with a previous edit. Please take up your case with the person who added that tag, not the bot that dated it. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

New Template

Template:COI editnotice is intended to eventually be added to the Talk pages of Category:Organizations. It's been incubating for about six months and I feel it's almost ready for a test-run on a sub-category like Category:Companies based in Idaho on a trial basis. What's the process for making sure there is consensus support for the template and making a bot request to add it to the articles? CorporateM (Talk) 21:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Post about it on WP:VPR, and maybe tag it as an RFC. Anomie⚔ 10:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Mistake

AnomieBOT is making errors on Pereskia, deleted {{Translated page}} Ramon de L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.146.184 (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2013‎

The bot edit was correct, see Template:Translated page. It's supposed to be placed on the article's talk page, i.e. Talk:Pereskia. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation Ramon de L — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.146.184 (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple AfD nominations with differing results

You might want to take a look at the edit the bot made at Talk:Izzeldin El Habbib(before it got speedy deleted) and compare with the actual AfD result. SpinningSpark 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The bot just looks for the first bit of bolded text in the result section of the page. If someone formats a split decision like that, I'm not sure how to really detect it. Anomie⚔ 00:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way to format it that wouldn't confuse the bot? The problem is not the formatting of the result, but as I said in my summary, the unhelpful multiple nomination of unrelated cases. Maybe the bot should flag it for human attention if there are two bits of bolded text in the result section. SpinningSpark 07:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

most of the articles you say are that I made are un notable, they are notable some more than others so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violetcries (talk • contribs) 08:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

AnomieBOT does not say anything is notable or not notable. Check the history of the relevant articles; most likely, some human editor added the notability tag and AnomieBOT simply added "|date=March 2013" so the article would be correctly categorized. Anomie⚔ 14:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

BOT Request

Hi. I need help implementing the consensus here to add a Talk template: Template:COI editnotice to Category:Companies based in Idaho and its sub-categories. Can someone help me set that up? CorporateM (Talk) 14:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

IFD closing function offline?

Hi. Are the bot's IFD functions offline? It didn't create the new daily page nor add the previous one to the list last night and hasn't closed a file that was deleted 10 hours ago. Thanks.--B (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The bot process that handles IFD (along with a bunch of other things) mysteriously exited at some point yesterday; mysterious because no error message was logged, so at this point I don't know what happened. Anomie⚔ 12:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --B (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it crashed again. --B (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The whole machine appears to have gone down now. Anomie⚔ 10:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anomie, I'm sure you've probably already noticed, but just in case you haven't, it's down again. --B (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed. I added a box to the top of the page notifying people of the situation. Anomie⚔ 10:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Monthly sub-categories

Hello there! It looks as if you have plenty to do already, but I have a question for you, as I see that you routinely create monthly sub-categories for hidden cats such as Category:Use British English: will you automatically detect a new hidden category that requires monthly sub-categories, and create those accordingly? Or do you need to be asked? I've just made Category:Use list-defined references, but don't know what action, if any, I need to take to generate e.g. Category:Use list-defined references from April 2013. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category should help. Anomie⚔ 02:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It did indeed. I should have been able to find that for myself. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to add links to it if you know of anyplace where it would make sense. Anomie⚔ 10:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Error?

Caught this error on the Aston Martin page. The ref is cited twice in the page, removing the duplication should be fine, but the bot puts it back in here. Here is the first case. [18] My attempt with AWB, 5 days later, is also reverted. [19] It has also been fighting with Yobot on this. [20] Explanation? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Technically speaking, it was only cited once on the page. The wikitext showed it twice; but one of them was in such a position as to be hidden. Specifically, it was placed on a |num_employees= parameter - but that parameter was inside an {{unbulleted list}} template, which does not recognise that parameter. This edit should have fixed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I think it will do fine. I'll re-parse for May and see if it catches it in the next pass. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing the tags on section controversy on Believers Church

I had made the necessary changes to the section controversy. If you feel the edit is as per the requirement kindly remove the tag on the article. Benedictdilton (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You should talk to LoveYourNeighbor1 (talk · contribs), who is the person that added the tags. Anomie⚔ 00:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) - Hi Benedictdilton - It looks like you already removed the tags in edit . GoingBatty (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Kriyananda page

Plan to revert edits by User:Jack B108 and ask him to take his suggestions to the talk page. This editor completely took out everything that was there including third party references and took the page in reverse to its 2010 version. Wanted to check with you first because of your post.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. AnomieBOT is a computer program that makes certain edits that don't require human judgment and would be tedious for humans to make, such as this edit where it added |date=April 2013 to a {{criticism section}} tag that was added in the previous edit. Anomie⚔ 10:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:PUF

Hi Anomie. We have a problem at WP:PUF, where Legobot used to add each new day to the holding cell. This task has not run since March 25, and inquiries to the bot operator have not met with any response. I was wondering if you could adapt the work of AnomieBot to do this task, similar to the work already being done at WP:FFD? Right now interested editors have to manually add the daily page to the holding cell, not an optimal solution, as it's too easy for things to fall between the cracks. Any consideration you could give to this request would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I pinged Legoktm (talk · contribs) on IRC, and he seems to be working to fix his bot. And he said he needed to clean out his watchlist so his bot talk page messages are easier to spot. Anomie⚔ 17:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, Anomie. I will continue to update the page manually. -- Dianna (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Why no updates at Wikipedia:BAG/Status?

Any idea? —Theopolisme (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The bot's processed were accidentally killed on Tool Labs. I've made some changes to hopefully handle this better, although I'm not sure of the underlying issue. Anomie⚔ 16:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre edit

For some reason the bot decided to revert to a vandalism edit of Lorenzo de Zavala, which you can see here- note the date changes and childish references to smoking and beer: [21] --MercZ (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The bot didn't revert anything. It did the best it could with some broken reference names, in order to eliminate the big red error "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Manuel_Lorenzo_Justiniano_de_Zavala_y_S.C3.A1enz_1788-1836 (see the help page).". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Specifically, when the bot looked through the article history to find text for an orphaned reference named "Manuel Lorenzo Justiniano de Zavala y Sáenz 1788-1836", it found that the most recent text for that reference was basically identical to the text for "Manuel Lorenzo Justiniano de Zavala y Sáenz 1499-1500" in the current revision. So it changed the orphaned reference to point to that existing ref in the current revision to resolve the big red error, on the assumption that someone renamed the ref and forgot to check for orphans. Anomie⚔ 18:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

ITN/C section heading for May 17

Hi,

Looks like the bot didn't create the May 17 section at ITN/C.

Thanks,

--IP98 (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No updates at WP:SPER?

Hi there - It looks like User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable hasn't updated in about a day and a half. --ElHef (Meep?) 13:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If it relies on data from Toolserver - as several other bots do - that would explain it, because various threads at WP:VPT suggest that Toolserver is not in the best of health. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
No. Perl's MySQL DBD modules doesn't automatically reconnect on certain errors where it really should, and one of these errors seems to happen with disturbing frequency in Tool Labs. So when that occurs, the AnomieBOT process dies. Anomie⚔ 15:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Offline?

AnomieBOT seems to be completely offline right now - I noticed when the SPERTable stopped updating again (it last updated about four hours ago) but looking at the bot's contributions, it seems to have completely stopped right around that time. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Tool labs maintenance, the bot didn't come back up correctly. Fixed now. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 00:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Well done! Norman21 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
Awesome programming! Flawless work. Ankit MaityTalkContribs 11:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Although AnomieBOT is not self-programming, thank you. ;) Anomie⚔ 18:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Redirects?

Not sure if this is a bot issue or an issue with my brain and I am completely alright with accepting it is something with my brain......I have come across a few articles that were sent to AfD with the result of merge. There was a redirect placed from the AfD article to another article. However, it looks like when the bot came and dated the maintenance tags, it removed the redirect. Maybe I am not seeing it correctly, but you can have a closer look at the history of the article Satanized (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Satanized&action=history) and let me know if there is an issue. I have since redirected the page to the proper location so you will need to track down the history from the redirect if the above link does not take you to it. Thanks. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think I figured it out. Looks like it is placing a merger tag for those who want to merge it. I don't know, maybe there is still something wrong with my brain...the bot...my brain...or the bot. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are looking at. AnomieBOT's only edit to that article is this. Nor do I see where you have edited that article at all, to redirect it or otherwise. Please link to exact diffs showing the possible problem. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 23:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WHY ???

WHY did you put Anosy Category to being renamed?

I'm doing 99% of the articles in that category and i see NO reason for renaming this !

If you like top complicate things: please also rename all US states, as Nevada to Nevada state] etc.

Please keeeeeeeep calm - don't do toooo much. tks & regds bot Tonton Bernardo (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

AnomieBOT has not edited Category:Anosy. I have no clue what you are talking about. Anomie⚔ 10:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I rather think that Tonton Bernardo has these edits in mind, which were made by Cydebot (talk · contribs). The relevant category rename request was made by Tassedethe, and it was sent for processing by Good Olfactory. Cydebot merely actioned that request, and AnomieBOT had nothing to do with it. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Redrose64: - since @Tonton Bernardo: mentioned "Anosy Category", I think Tonton may be thinking of the changes of Category:Anosy to Category:Anosy Region, such as this diff, also by Cydebot. GoingBatty (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes; but it's encompassed by Tasse's request. I notice that Tonton has also complained to Tasse, Good and Cyde. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Inadequate "fixes"

Regarding the bot's and my inadequate "fixes" to Independent Order of Odd Fellows, and your note.

You mentioned "I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors". As this one is a bit unusual, I thought it might be useful to you if I explained it to you. I don't think this event (series of events) is a situation that a bot could handle simply, but as you're the expert, I'll leave that with you.

Someone came along and duplicated a reference, and then removed the original reference they duplicated, but they did not remove all the links to the original reference. (I did not notice that they gave the new reference a different name to the original - I foolishly assumed that they used the same link name.) Your bot came along and did it's job of restoring the deleted original. Without proper investigation, I saw that your bot had re-created the duplicate reference, so I reverted the duplication. My revert didn't change anything, so the bot re-restored the original, and you dropped me a note.

This time I properly investigated, discovered the refs had different link names, reverted the bot, and updated the old link name to the new link name. So now the bot won't re-re-restore the no-longer-referenced original.

I hope this is useful for you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you did the right thing to fix it in this edit. The bot tries to detect when the references are effectively identical, but in this case the "IOOF homepage" ref and the "aboutus" ref were actually linking to two different URLs (the different accessdates don't matter, the bot ignores that field when comparing) so the bot didn't see them as identical. Particularly when looking at the series of edits involved, I don't see any way either that the bot could have known that the "IOOF homepage" and "aboutus" refs were equivalent. But thanks for letting me know. Anomie⚔ 11:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice

This edit was uncorrect, it has global bot status and thus can run certain tasks without local approval. Regards, --Ricordisamoa 07:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Anomie⚔ 00:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

PUICloser: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 15 is broken - fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 15 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⚡ 16:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, I think --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it. Anomie⚔ 00:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

PUICloser: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 16 is broken - fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 16 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⚡ 16:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, I think --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it. Anomie⚔ 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnomieBOT/Archive_5&oldid=1151010284"