Jump to content

User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

I <3 You AnomieBOT!

You are like my own little WikiOtter. Keep up the good teamwork.KlappCK (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

northern alliance

The part about European Parliament and Northern alliance is false, because the link youtube video is not valid so it must be deleted --Ambelland (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confused. If you are referring to this edit, AnomieBOT did not undo your edit or re-add the reference. All AnomieBOT did was fix the big red error left in reference 29 after your edit (because you forgot to remove all instances of <ref name="EU Parliament"/>) by supplying the missing text for the reference that already existed. Anomie⚔ 17:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon AnomieBOT, DadrianT,Esq (British County Surveyor) here, (stands to attention; salutes; and speaks:)

I am grateful for your contributing banner warnings and requests to the 'County Surveyor' page. I have already had discussions with JaGa about these very issues and am currently in the process of removing my accidental offences of Wikipedia policy about article content.

My only excuse is my present state of unfamiliarity, not so much with Wikipedia, but with the jargon it uses, and the encyclopaedic range of sources it provides where that jargon is explained, in yet more jargon.

I am not complaining about the jargon, I have an autistic spectrum disorder, asperger's syndrome, plus obsessive compulsive disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and though I am retired now, I have spent 50 years writing encyclopaedias of jargon; so it would be churlish of me to complain about other people doing it too. I did, however, find, in the course of my career, a professional one, dealing with the public, face to face, on the telephone, and in writing, that, provided I gave them due consideration for the fact that they were lay persons, without my highly specialised education, training, experience and, hence, qualifications, enabling me to acquire higher levels of education, training, experience and hence, qualifications, enabling me to .... etc., etc., cyclically, until I retired, I could always find ways of getting inside their heads and copying the thoughts and ideas inside my brain and pasting it into theirs.

So, please bear with me. I have adopted voluntarily editing articles in Wikipedia that are relevant to my present and past fields of career expertise as a challenging and absorbing hobby in my leisure years of retirement. I had only taken up studing Philosophy, Religion, the Arts, and the Sciences, at university level and above, since retiring, until I read an article in Wikipedia and found that it was almost entirely USA-centric and took virtually no account of policy and practice outside the USA. But it contained a banner warning and requests for volunteers to remedy those defects, so I began doing that, anonymously first, until I figured out how to register an account with Wikipedia, create my signature and set up my own UserPage; and then began finding dozens of other articles that needed someone of my education, training, experience, and qualifications, to edit them also: so, I have not yet gone back to my studies of Philosophy, Religion, the Arts, and the Sciences, as I seem to be locked in a Time Warp with Wikipedia, similar to that of the Mad March Hare in Lewis Carroll's Alice Through The Looking Glass, 'so much to do, and so little time to do it.'

And for that reason I will bid you 'adieu' and get back to my editing!

Namaste.

Adrian

DadrianT,EsqMCIHT (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks & Sorry

I keep forgetting to date templates and AnomieBOT keeps tidying up after me. For the latter I am thankful & the former I am sorry. I did remember to add a date a couple of times recently so I am slowly learning. In the meantime, thanks AnomieBOT and thanks Anomie. -- fgTC 19:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it's one of the things AnomieBOT is there for. Anomie⚔ 00:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

OTAShirt-Front/Back

These images were wrongly deleted. They had been replaced with Free versions. Please revert, and look at file history before destroying content. --Belg4mit (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBOT did not delete anything, it just noted on the WP:PUF discussion that the image had been deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs). I see you've already posted the same complaint on Fastily's talk page, hopefully he responds appropriately. Anomie⚔ 20:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, sorry, this was what I saw first in the logs...
Close discussions for deleted/nonexistent files: File:OTAShirt-Back.png Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/PUICloser)
Which does look like it did something. Upon closer inspection I saw the bot did not do the deletion and I posted to [[User::Fastily/Discussion]. --Belg4mit (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please re-check the EmailTray page for the 'notability' and 'primary sources' issues?

Hello AnomieBOT! Thank you for your warnings as per the 'notability' and 'primary sources', they were of great help! :) I changed the list of references in this article and added reliable sources, with the names of the authors and source names. Hope the 'notability' and 'primary sources' templates can now be safely removed, could you revise this please? HolyStranger (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBOT did not add those tags; they were added by Tedickey (talk · contribs) in the previous edit. AnomieBOT just added the current date to the tags so the article could be sorted into the appropriate dated maintenance category. Anomie⚔ 12:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Anomie! I already realized this. Tedickey (talk · contribs) has already revised the page and fixed the issue. Thanks again for your attention! HolyStranger (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Shaahin Cheyene

Hi, This article is properly cited and it has been edited by other editors to comply with the wiki standard. I do not have any affiliation with Mr. Cheyene and there is absolutely no conflict of interest. FYI Fareast eagle (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is an automated computer program that (among other things) adds dates to maintenance templates so the article may be categorized correctly for cleanup. It has no understanding of your article, it knows just enough to find and replace "{{coi}}" with "{{coi|date=October 2011}}". The tag you are complaining about was added by Mean as custard (talk · contribs) in the edit before AnomieBOT's; he/she is the person you need to talk to. Anomie⚔ 11:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

correction to Murad Wilfried Hofmann, 1 June 2010

It's a long time ago now, but this, described as "Rescuing orphaned refs", could better have been described as "helping to conceal vandalism", which I have just corrected. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

See the box titled "Regarding the OrphanReferenceFixer, please note:" at the top of the page. Anomie⚔ 19:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

List of vegetable oils

This bot just overwrote an edit that was happening at the same time on the same spot in the article. The change would have dealt with the maintenance tags, but now has been lost and hast to be re-researched. Very annoying. Waitak (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that the bot overwrote anything. Are you talking about an edit conflict? Anomie⚔ 01:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, that's what I meant. Waitak (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

CHUUClerk bug

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations#Mnidaydwisww → Mnid - why does the bot think this target user was notified? –xenotalk 16:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The bot assumes notification if the old username is linked on the new username's talk page, i.e. if [[User:Mnidaydwisww] or [[User:Mnidaydwisww| appears on User talk:Mnid. But in this case, for some completely unknown reason, Mnidaydwisww has already redirected User talk:Mnid to his own talk page, which of course contains his own signature numerous times. Anomie⚔ 18:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The bot should probably test for the word 'usurp' along with the requester's username. –xenotalk 18:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 Done Anomie⚔ 19:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Toyota 2L engine

Please note that Toyota had a series of diesel engines called '2L' (with variants like '2L-T'). The bot has converted some of the references to the 2L engine to 2 L. The engine code will never have a space in it. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  22:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure AnomieBOT did not do any such thing. If you are referring to what you corrected here, that was done by 174.34.135.219 (talk · contribs) on 11 October 2011. All AnomieBOT did was add "|date=October 2011" to the {{Use dmy dates}} added by Schwede66 in the previous edit. Anomie⚔ 01:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
You are quite correct. My apologies.  Stepho  talk  04:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Anomie⚔ 11:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem edit, your thoughts?

In this edit, AnomieBOT appears to have removed the title parameter from the {{cite web}} template. Is this normal? It broke the link, so I did revert it but I didn't know if this was something to be concerned about. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 00:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a bug. Anomie⚔ 00:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Bug is fixed. I'm also running a script over the bot's edits for this task to identify any other articles where the same error was made. Looks like I'll have plenty to do later. Thanks for reporting the bug! Anomie⚔ 03:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot is changing archived discussions

Shouldn't be changing pages that are archived discussions

[1]

Anniepoo (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not? It's just bypassing a link to a redirection service, not changing anything substantial. Anomie⚔ 01:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

CURRENTYEAR

Can I ask why the BOT is changing the {{CURRENTYEAR}} entry in the {{Inflation}} template. It is used here to keep the information current rather than having to go round changing each of the articles every year. I reverted one change by the BOT but it came along again and reverted this here. Has there been some agreement that this should not be used and that the information has to be manually updated on an annual basis? Keith D (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of {{CURRENTYEAR}} in articles is often wrong, but I see how that is a good use. I've adjusted the bot to only replace {{CURRENTYEAR}} inside the dated parameters of dated templates. I've also started a query to give me a list of all the times it has replaced {{CURRENTYEAR}} so I can revert any that need reverting. Anomie⚔ 20:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for quick response. Keith D (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
At least there are only 97 edits that need review, despite it running that way for 11 months. Apparently another common use for {{CURRENTYEAR}} in articles is in estimating the current population of a country based on "X people added per day" from some source. And another is in calculating the date of a holiday for the next few years. Anomie⚔ 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've shutoff the ReplaceExternalLinks4 task because it's breaking YouTube links. Example diffs are on the shutoff page. jcgoble3 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that! I've reverted all the affected edits and fixed the bug. Anomie⚔ 15:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A fine and well-programmed bot, may your diodes never pain you

Thank you, oh wise and powerful bot operator, for fixing my silly mistake (this one, for reference - I forgot to update other instances of the ref name parameter when renaming a reference). FiveColourMap (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

The bot has not edited WP:AC/N in some time. Is there any reason for this? It is not like there isn't work for it to do. Best, NW (Talk) 03:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that r93977 was an unannounced breaking change in the API. Looking at it now. Anomie⚔ 15:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks fixing that. Do you think that revision may have also broke easyblock ? –xenotalk 19:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Not likely; more likely the problem is a blacklisted link on the user's page. I just tried that script on ThisIsaTest (talk · contribs) and it seemed to work fine. Anomie⚔ 21:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding The_Ethics_of_Ambiguity

Thanks for cleaning up the article on The_Ethics_of_Ambiguity. You added template

indicating that more inline citations are needed. But all the citations are to the online edition of the work, which has no page numbers. I do footnote the first quotation with this:

All quotations are from the on-line edition of The Ethics of Ambiguity, which has no page numbers.

So I am not sure how to improve it from here. Do you think it would be OK to remove the 'more footnotes' template? Bmeacham (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a bot, not a human. The bot did not place the template on the page, it merely added a date to it for tracking purposes. ukexpat (talk · contribs) added the template, so you will need to take this issue up with him/her. jcgoble3 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

PUICloser: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 November 8 is broken - Fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 November 8 contains the "is_closed" regex but not at the beginning of the section. Probably someone put the {{puf top}} before a section header instead of after. Anyway, I can't do anything to that page until someone fixes it. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what you thought it probably was, O Mighty Bot. I have fixed it. jcgoble3 (talk)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Achalasia - Fixed

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Achalasia, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about http://anysymptoms.com. This probably means someone didn't properly clean up after themselves when blacklisting the link and removing existing uses, but a human needs to double-check it. The attempted changes were:

You might also use {{subst:User:Anomie/uw-orphans|1=rm diff|2=fix diff}} to let the remover know, if their edit summary indicates they were specifically removing the blacklisted ref. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 20:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, and Amatulic (talk · contribs) has been notified with the suggested template. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Bots deserve kitten love too. :) This one does a lot of good work. :D

LauraHale (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBOT thanks you. Although what it intends to do with a kitten, I have no idea ;) Anomie⚔ 13:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Kumaoni language - Fixed

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Kumaoni language, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about http://www.indianetzone.com. This probably means someone didn't properly clean up after themselves when blacklisting the link and removing existing uses, but a human needs to double-check it. The attempted changes were:

You might also use {{subst:User:Anomie/uw-orphans|1=rm diff|2=fix diff}} to let the remover know, if their edit summary indicates they were specifically removing the blacklisted ref. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 15:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed jcgoble3 (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Affair of Abu Tellul

Hi, The accusation of POV regarding the name of this article is odd since the name has not reached a consensus although discussion continues. It is already under a 72 hour hold on changes to the article name. Could you see your way to reevaluating this? Thanking you, --Rskp (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBOT's evaluation consisted of observing that the template {{POV}} did not have a correct date parameter (which caused the article to be listed in Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template), so it fixed it. If you want re-evaluation of the POV tag itself you should ask Anotherclown (talk · contribs), who added the tag in the previous edit. Anomie⚔ 03:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

PUICloser: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 6 is broken - Fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 April 6 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⚡ 14:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to do here. Somebody used 1 {{puf top}} to close 7 sections at once. I'll pass to someone with more experience at PUF than me. And if I have nothing better to do than stalk a bot's talk page, I need to get a life. :P jcgoble3 (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, why is the bot trying to mess with a page that's 2+1⁄2 years old? jcgoble3 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Probably someone linked to it as a "past discussion" in an new discussion; when I wrote that code, I took the lazy way and had it check any PUI page that was linked from WP:PUI instead of trying to parse out the ones directly linked. I'll have to fix that... Anomie⚔ 21:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Bot should be fixed now. Anomie⚔ 05:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

TFDClerk: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14 is broken - Fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14 contains the "is_closed" regex but not at the beginning of the section. Probably someone put the {{tfd top}} before a section header instead of after. Anyway, I can't do anything to that page until someone fixes it. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed jcgoble3 (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing days from dates

I noticed that AnomieBOT removes and replaces dates if days are included as it did at Prenatal nutrition and birth weight. This is counter-productive for merge templates as a merge isn't usually proposed for more than a week or two. For now I've gone and used a date template hoping that it won't be removed. The Haz talk 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's how |date= for those templates works: the category is Category:Articles to be merged from November 2011, not Category:Articles to be merged from 14 November 2011 (see?), and the date parameter currently exists on those templates solely for categorization. It is possible this could be changed in various ways, but that would require discussion somewhere to determine consensus. Anomie⚔ 20:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks. The Haz talk 20:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In use tag

Would be nice if AnomieBOT could refrain from dating {{cn}} etc. while there's a {{in use}} tag on the article. It's caused me edit conflicts a couple of times, most recently here.[2] Any chance?  —SMALLJIM  20:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It does, actually. Note that AnomieBOT didn't date the tag until two hours after your previous edit. Quoth the {{in use}} documentation: "If it has been up for more than two hours since the last edit, it should be removed". Anomie⚔ 23:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, doesn't time fly when you're editing! I missed the two hours bit, just read the template message which says "several hours". I suppose two is just several :) Thanks for the reply and sorry for the unnecessary query.  —SMALLJIM  00:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Anomie⚔ 01:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Pragmatic Works

Thanks for reviewing the article. We have added couple of new citations for "Microsoft Gold Partner". Please review the article and let us know if we need more citations to fix the "Citations needed" issue. Appreciate your time. Many Thanks. GeekyPuppy (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a bot, not a human. The bot did not add the maintenance tag to the article, it merely added a date to it for tracking and categorization purposes. You will need to take the issue up with Several Times (talk · contribs), who is the user that actually added the tag to the article. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation of dates

Is there any point at all in having this bot replace "Date=" by "date=" in maintenance tags? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Template parameter names are case sensitive, so as far as the templates are concerned "date=" and "Date=" are as different as "date=" and "(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ =" (and yes, the latter is a valid template parameter name). Anomie⚔ 22:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for always doing such a great job finding orphans, undated citation needed templates, etc. I try to catch them at the time, and yet still find you catch some. I'll try harder! Great job at maintaining a quality impression for the readers. CaroleHenson (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
AnomieBOT thanks you. Anomie⚔ 20:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Max Healthcare Page

Hi,

I am in the process of creating wiki page for Max Healthcare. I need your help in preparing this page. The suggestions you gave on this page have implemented by me. I would request you to kindly take a quick look at this page as i added some content recently..........

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binodkpn (talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBOT did not give you any suggestions. It just added dates to maintenance tags added by others, and removed a flag icon from the infobox. Anomie⚔ 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biathlon

Hi! First — sorry for my bad English (I'm not native speaker). I wanted to ask you to tag WikiProject Biathlon articles with {{WikiProject Biathlon|class=|importance=}} template. This is my first time at asking to tag the pages so sorry for some stupid questions. Could you set "stub" class for pages that have stub templates? And could you suggest some good things for better Assessment? And with the Biathletes — could you set parametr "|needs-infobox=yes" if there isn't Template:Infobox sportsperson or Template:Infobox alpine ski racer? Oh, and I wanted to ask to tag this category with all the subcats.--Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 21:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm wary of doing a major tagging run for a project that has been around for only a week and has only one member. Ask again once the project has some activity. Anomie⚔ 00:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

TemplateSubster task feature request

Perhaps there could be a feature that uses a parameter on the template that would say that the template will be auto-substituted, where AnomieBOT will only subst that template on certain namespaces.

For example, one template, lets say {{a}}, could be auto-subst'd on the file, main, talk, and book namespaces, while usages on other namespaces will not be subst'd. This would be controlled from the {{substituted}} template.

My main reason for requesting this is because it would be useful in my sync-pp template, so that it would be auto-subst'd in the main and talk namespaces, but not others, such as userspace.

Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 03:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

deadurl

Hi! I forgot to comment on the BRFA. Any chance you could also add |deadurl=yes when you archive? This won't change the output but will help any future dealings/checking of the links and distinguish between preemptive archived ones. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't "yes" supposed to be the default for deadurl? Anomie⚔ 11:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It is, but the bots/tools don't know if it really is. So if an archiving bot runs through articles, it doesn't need to check these again. I guess it doesn't matter that much. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

PERTableUpdater

FYI seems like the PERTableUpdater task appears to not be running. The shutoff page is blank as it should be. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be running ok. What was the problem? Anomie⚔ 03:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. It has been updating User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable but not User:AnomieBOT/PERTable. That makes no sense... Anomie⚔ 03:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I was just being dumb and forgetting which day today is. It hasn't been updating for 24 hours, so the hour was right but the day was wrong. On the plus side, I already fixed it because I noticed the error (thinking it was a warning) in the log. Anomie⚔ 03:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Womance

AnomieBOT why do you consider "womance" not notable when it is a term of increasing frequency and no such criticism is made of "bromance"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchy85 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You are confused. Please check AnomieBOT's edit more carefully: you will see that all the bot did was add |date=December 2011 to the existing tags added in the previous edit by Piotrus (talk · contribs). Please contact him to discuss the tags. Anomie⚔ 12:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: welcome banner

Thanks for your message -overwhelmed, but think it's amazing. SarahGreenHD (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry for the confusion, but the welcome message left on your page was really left by User:Pigsonthewing; I've corrected the message for you. AnomieBOT is a computer program that cleans up certain types of errors, but it had a problem in that case so your welcome message got the wrong name on it. I've fixed it for you. Happy editing! Anomie⚔ 17:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
You can blame me for the confusion. Sorry. fredgandt 17:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed stamp

Regarding the edit you made on the James Monroe page [[3]], I added the citation, though it was already included in subsequent paragraphs. I see that someone else originally added the citation needed stamp, but I'd like to know if the edit made today satisfies your concerns for the paragraph in question. See the new edit here: [[4]] Studyhard12 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the person who originally added the tag. AnomieBOT just fixed the incorrect date. Anomie⚔ 17:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the response.Studyhard12 (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

adding lead=yes to {{nihongo}}

Part of the mediation result from WP:VG and WP:MOS-JA was the addition of lead=yes to the template. I am wanting to know if AnomieBOT can go through and add this to the end of the first lead instance of {{nihongo}} (outside of the infobox) to every article under Category:Video games and all subcategories. If the template is not in the lead, it shouldn't add it and it shouldn't add it to subsquent lead templates and skip it if the field already exists.∞陣内Jinnai 18:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly possible, although a little care will have to be taken to avoid finding a possible {{nihongo}} in the infobox instead of the one in the actual article text. But it would be more straightforward to just processed articles assessed by WPVG directly instead of using a content category that may not have perfect correspondence. Anomie⚔ 04:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess that could be done if it excluded project pages.∞陣内Jinnai 15:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot clobbered page

Vandalism on Scientific literacy caused the bot to consider the entire page as part of the template tag, and the bot happily clobbered the page ( diff here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Scientific_literacy&diff=466539161&oldid=466536554 ). I am not sure if there's much you can do, just FYI. Exor674 (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Hey AnomieBOT thank you for correcting the form of making a disputed section on the Barry Seal page.

I am a total noob here, so thanks also for not biting.

Ericksommers (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Ericksommers

Gerhard Bassenge

Please quit destroying the linkage to http://www.geocities.com/%7Eorion47/ in this article. By applying the bot to it, you ruin it as a source citation in several ways:

1) You limit access to only the "cover page" of this website, as all screens in this website share the same URL. As I explained in both a footnote to the article and in the edit summary in my reversion which you have now re-reverted, it takes several clicks to get to Bassenge's page and/or the website's bibliography. When your bot has finished inflicting its damage, exactly none of that is possible.

2) You are substituting an outdated dysfunctional version of the website for the current functional one.

3) Information from this website supplies a great deal of the material for this article. Nullifying it as you have done leaves the material subject to removal, and reduces the article to a stub.

I would appreciate acknowledgment of this via talk-back. In the meantime, I am going to once again change the article to a form with functional cites, and would appreciate your leaving it that way.

Georgejdorner (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Geocities closed on October 26, 2009. The website cannot have been updated since then, as according to Yahoo even the "premium" sites that weren't taken offline cannot be updated anymore, so the archive from 2010 that the bot is inserting cannot be "outdated". There is also no guarantee that Yahoo will keep these old "premium" sites around forever. Second, most Geocities sites are not reliable sources; I don't know the details of this particular site, but if you can find something more reliably published that would certainly help matters. Third, you might want to find a different site anyway, as that site's Java crashes my browser and therefore may crash other readers' browsers as well. And fourth, unless there is some sort of JavaScript on the pages (or something in the Java applet) that redirects the visitor to their frameset, you should be able to link to the actual page that is displayed in the main content frame instead of relying on readers to dig through the website looking for your information. Anomie⚔ 15:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware that Geocities had closed. However, your bot cutting the connection with the website instantly instead its lapsing in the natural course of affairs doesn't improve the situation. It cuts the user off from the bibliography that makes this site more reliable than its unreferenced mirrors.

I know nothing of Java's function in directing readers toward pages. I do know that when I click on the URL left by the bot, I can get no further than an incomplete entry page to the site. I also have observed, by actual test, that all screens of the site share the same URL in the unaltered listing, when I click through them to the bibliography or to Bassenge's bio page. This is actual practice, not theory.

It may be that this link may be broken in the future. That does not mean there is a need to use a bot to break it immediately.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Internet Archive is not perfect, particularly with sites that use unusual applets or other plugins. OTOH, if I turn off Java so my browser doesn't crash, the "old HTML version" links in the archived copy seem to work fine.
As for your "actual practice", if you are using Firefox try right-clicking in the page and choosing "This Frame" and then "Show only this frame". If you are in some other browser, look around in its menus or Google for instructions on escaping frames. Anomie⚔ 22:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I use Safari.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Negative deleted edits

I do realise that edit counting is fraught with problems, especially regarding deleted edits. But negative deleted edits simply doesn't make sense. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

True, but it's a matter of garbage in, garbage out. The MediaWiki edit counter for that user (which is never decremented even when something is deleted) indicates they made 299 edits, but there are 304 edits listed in their contributions. Presumably something odd happened in the earlier days of Wikipedia that added 5 edits without updating the edit counter, but I have no idea what that might have been. Anomie⚔ 17:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
OK. It seems as though max(0, deleted edits) should be applied, but I suppose in the larger scheme of things it doesn't matter a lot. (Thanks for the great work you do with AnomieBOT, by the way... it seems a remarkably well-oiled bot.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxy Mediation/Another thought

I wonder if you could take a look at the Oxy mediation page/user talk. I would welcome your input.Cowboy128 (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is a simple computer program, and has no input to give. I suggest you ask AGK (talk · contribs) or another mediator. Anomie⚔ 17:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxy Revisions

I am concerned that my contributions to the Occidental Petroleum page are being vandalized in a systematic fashion. Despite my willingness to compromise on the wording of the material, they simply delete the entire contribution.

Help!Cowboy128 (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The above was possibly intended for User talk:Tedder. It relates to a very minor dispute at Occidental Petroleum. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a minor dispute.Cowboy128 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Garbo comment

Hello AB. I ustand your point, but it would be impossible to cite who said these things. In all my research, it is said my many people. It's a very important part of her legacy, but I don't think it's possible to cite. So, I'll remove your edit and if you feel strongly about it, I'll leave it for others to do it.Take care,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK--I zipped over to the Vieira 2005 biography which summarizes the critical response to many of her pictures. So I think I fixed the problem. Greetings,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you are confused. AnomieBOT is a simple computer program that performs repetitive tasks that would be tedious for a human to do, such as adding the current month and year to maintenance templates like {{who?}}. I'd guess you want to talk to Dl2000 (talk · contribs), who is the one who added the tag in this edit. Anomie⚔ 00:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: Maurice H. Rindskopf

What does the bot want cited here:

Several obituaries (eg. The Annapolis Capital, Naval History Magazine) confused Rindskopf's eleven patrols onboard Drum as eleven patrols in command of Drum. He was only in command for patrols 10 and 11, yet he had a hand in every sinking in Drum's history.[citation needed]

That confusion exists or that the Drum never sank another ship? Refs are made to the obits, and Drum's combat record is already established above. Not that I can't provide the footnotes, it's that I believe it's data already established. JMOprof (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT doesn't want anything cited there. It just added "|date=January 2012" to the {{cn}} that Fnlayson (talk · contribs) added in the previous edit. Anomie⚔ 22:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah...Thanks. JMOprof (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A thought for deletion sorting

Have you considered putting the article titles of the closed XfDs that are removed in the edit summary for bot edits like this? I can see how it could get cluttered - maybe article titles with links if one or two are removed, or a message like "n discussions removed" if it is more? I find myself clicking the diffs several times a day just to see what has changed. Thanks. HausTalk 20:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Another approach occurred to me. Something like Archiving closed XfDs (errors?) (1 2). That way, one could tell what was archived by hovering over the links. Cheers. HausTalk 21:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll have a look. If I don't reply again in a few days, please ping me as it probably means I forgot. Anomie⚔ 22:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 Done That should do it. Let me know if there are any problems. Anomie⚔ 18:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Very nice. Thank you! HausTalk 18:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 19

Oops. Did I do something wrong to cause this response? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You used {{rfd top}} instead of {{tfd top}}, so the bot didn't recognize the discussions as closed. Anomie⚔ 02:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes I did. Silly me. Thanks for the speedy and intelligent response, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A template with auto signature adopts AnomieBOT's if he substs it.

Hi! {{subst:PrevBtn}} has an auto sign code. If AnomieBOT cleans up when the template is not substed by the user, it gets signed by AnomieBOT. How can we work around this? I actually don't mind if AnomieBOT takes the credit, but you might. I'd prefer not to remove the auto signing, but if there is really no other way... The same code exists in {{subst:Welcome to Wikipedia}} too. fredgandt 04:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hrm. Should be fixed now; bit of a pain that the bot now has to make at least 1 extra API call per template substed, to check for such things. Anomie⚔ 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Anomie. If you have had to twist the programming to make extra calls and the like, I feel bad about that. If my templates are the only ones causing the issue, I should prefer to remove the code rather than have you caused any bother. It's totally up to you. I hoped there would be some trick to easily solve the minor issue. I'll remove the templates from the auto subst category. Then poor AnomieBOT can go back to doing things the easy way. I'm sorry I caused you any fuss. It's not at all fair on you to have to write special code just for one or two templates. fredgandt 17:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, it's necessary bother. You're not the only one who makes auto-signing templates. Anomie⚔ 18:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I've taken the two templates out of the category AnomieBOT watches. It's much more fair on everyone that way. If the users are too lazy to add subst themselves then that's their problem. fredgandt 18:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Ooops I missed your reply there. Really? I've just suffered a massively painful attack of foot cramp and am not concentrating very well. I'll come back later when I can think better. Really really sorry for my nuisance. fredgandt 18:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok so, are you 100% certain that it's ok to add the template back to the category? The last thing I want to do is make anyone's job harder. fredgandt 18:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead. If you see any more problems, let me know. Anomie⚔ 19:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Okie doke. Just spent half an hour trying to clean-up a new article that might have had some decent bits in it (very long), and found it had been deleted while I was editing. Bloody waste of time that was  fredgandt 19:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Something is still a bit off

this diff shows a substitution carried out by AnomieBOT of {{Greet}} (a shorcut for {{Welcome to Wikipedia}}). It was added to the IP talk page by Guy Macon, but has ended up showing the IP the talk page is for, as the user who added the template. The error goes beyond the autosigning too. There are a few cases where {{REVISIONUSER}} is used to set the name of the user who adds the template. In those cases the IP is added instead of the user who added the template. All very complex. fredgandt 06:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Small bug in the logic, should be fixed now. Anomie⚔ 11:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 !  fredgandt 12:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

sheep stone? Anomie⚔ 12:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
You rock! fredgandt 12:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot Improperly using in-article tag [why?] to request additional research/speculation into facts not published

Your Bot inserted [why?] at the end of a sentence in the Costa Concordia Disaster stating that the captain had turned off the navigation alarm system. That is not appropriate. That is a request for more information than has been published. Real editors go to Talk to discuss whether any such information might have been published and whether that info is relevant. Your bot has gone rouge and is defacing the article. I searched your bot permissions to see if it is authorised to do such [IMHO] absurd things but found nothing one point. Correct your bot code. Thanks.SteveO1951 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I get it. your bot merely dated the [why?] inserted by some other editor. Sorry for the misattribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveO1951 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Glad you figured it out. Anomie⚔ 18:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance Tags

This morning, I had a few ideas as to how the backlog of of some maintenance tags could be better managed. In order that I can develop my ideas further, I wondered if you would tell me if your bot can do or can be persuaded to do any of the following: Add dates to templates (i.e. new templates that I intend to write) If an article or its talk page contain one of my new templates can the article be added to a category and a category by date, in the same way that split tags (for example) are handled at the moment.

I am asking, because it would appear that your bot is currently doing all of this for existing templates such as split, but I cannot work out whether the specific tags that the bot is operating on are hardwired into your code or whether there is a config file external to your code where this behaviour is specified.

I hope that you will understand that I cannot go into details at the moment because I have not worked out the details yet.

regards Op47 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding having your new templates add categories like the existing maintenance tags, look at the source for the existing templates. Inline tags (e.g. {{citation needed}}) should use {{fix}} to do most of the work, while the large tags (e.g. {{plot}}) should use {{ambox}}'s new |cat=, |date=, and |all= parameters. {{citation needed}} and {{plot}} also illustrate the use of the {{unsubst}} template, which prevents problems caused when someone incorrectly tries to subst the maintenance tag.
Regarding having AnomieBOT date your new templates: Make the template use the "standard" |date= as above, make the category it adds in absence of a date be in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month, and add your new template to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates. You'd probably also want to arrange for a bot to create the monthly categories; I think one of Rich Farmbrough's bots does this for most of the current dated maintenance categories.
HTH. Anomie⚔ 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(Something about Bahranis)

My friend Owning ancestors of subscribers to the Syrians and the Lebanese with Bahranis Does not mean that we call upon them Bahranis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashrf1979 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confused. AnomieBOT is an automated process that, among other things, adds dates to templates such as {{cn}} that were added by other editors. It does not add these tags itself or make other content edits. Anomie⚔ 21:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

'Under construction' pages

It would be good if the bot recognised the {{Under construction}} template (and possibly {{In use}}; not tested) and avoided editing pages using them; it could always add them to a list for later attention; and even remove them after a suitable period. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Why should the bot not edit when {{Under construction}} is applied? The template specifically invites other editors to contribute. As for {{in use}}, the OrphanReferenceFixer and TagDater tasks do pay attention to it: they wait until the page has not been edited for 2 hours, as the template suggests. If there are other tasks you think should honor {{in use}}, please let me know and I will consider it. Anomie⚔ 16:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

TemplateReplacer request

Requesting a TemplateReplacer run, please. I need to replace transclusions of {{WikiProject Thai districts}} with {{WikiProject Thailand}}, while adding the parameter districts=yes, since the project was inactive and has been merged. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the bump, not sure if you missed this. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I did miss it. Is there a pointer to the consensus discussion resulting in the merge? Anomie⚔ 15:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Not really; I admit it was a rather large assumption on my part, though no substantial activity had been occurring on either the project page or talk page since 2008. (Project's been tagged as inactive since November 2009.) It's been a week and no one has disputed the move, though (notice given here). --Paul_012 (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Doing... Sorry for the delay. So based on the fact that it has been merged with no complaint for some time now, I'll go ahead. Not that it matters much for the end result, but I'm going to run this under WikiProjectWorker rather than TemplateReplacer, as WikiProjectWorker has better support for merging banners, copying assessments, and junk like that. It'll also assess stubs, dabs, and the like automatically if they aren't already assessed. Anomie⚔ 02:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Y Done Anomie⚔ 04:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Everything seems to be fine; thank you for the assistance! --Paul_012 (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the good work! Dating tags is very useful - we tend to forget it. Cheers, Edcolins (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
AnomieBOT thanks you. Anomie⚔ 20:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

incorrect HTML comment

You are adding an HTML comment of the form:

<!--is it a necessary page, per [[WPTWODABS]] and [[Template:db-disambig]]?-->

This should be [[WP:TWODABS]] rather than [[WPTWODABS]]

-- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confused: AnomieBOT is a computer program, not a human, and is not programmed to add any such comment. Without a reference to any page that actually contains this comment, I can only guess that it was added by some other editor along with a maintenance tag (such as {{citation needed}}) that AnomieBOT then dated. Anomie⚔ 04:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware it's a bot, but I did have a mental lapse when looking at this diff. Sorry about that, it was the other editor. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Anomie⚔ 16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for rescuing one of the references in the article List of former Hersheypark attractions. The assistance is always appreciated! Son (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
AnomieBOT thanks you! Anomie⚔ 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Albemarle County, Virginia

It appears that this bot has been adding Albemarle County, Virginia templates to biographical articles which have no relevance to Virginia. I removed the template from Talk:Murray Merle Schwartz, but I am sure there are others. Please investigate why this is happening. If possible, remove the inappropriate templates. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBOT shouldn't have added any tags for that task, just assessed existing tags. You can see this in the diff for Talk:Murray_Merle_Schwartz, for example; the tag itself was added to that particular page by DodoBot (talk · contribs) in an earlier edit. Anomie⚔ 03:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that information. I have learned that many of the Albemarle County, Virginia templates are added to biographies of persons who graduated from the University of Virginia. That may not be the right policy, but it is something of an explanation. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

AnomieBOT is edit warring with me on Jean-Claude Sikorav. I intentionally dated the template "March". After the first bot edit, I created the maintenance category, but the bot made the same edit again. What criterion does the bot use to decide whether the date is acceptable? For now I have put a nobots tag on the article to stop the bot from making the same edit a third time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Why did you add a future date in the tag? This makes no sense to me. Editors should not be allowed to change maintenance dates to jump the queue. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no "queue" and no deadline for that tag; in general these things sit endlessly and the only point of the date is to give a rough sense of when the article was tagged. Since it's closer to March then January I went with March. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It's closer to February than to January or March. The criterion the bot uses in this case is simple enough: the specified date is in the future, so it's not valid. Anomie⚔ 03:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
That's unfortunate; if a human wants to set a template in a certain way, the bot should not change it. I was surprised because the bot approval (#49) describes an algorithm that would not make any edit as long as the date is in the correct format. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
It could be argued that a date in the future or in the far past is not in a valid format; the dated templates certainly think so, as such a date will cause the article to be placed in Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template. Which, BTW, answers the question you asked then removed: the bot was attracted to the article because of the "invalid date parameter" category. Also note that, even though you created the category at 16:45 (UTC), the article's category membership was not correctly updated due to T33628 and so the bot saw the page still in the invalid date category at 17:29. Anomie⚔ 04:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Most of the people fixing tags start from those which have been tagged for longer time. This is one of the reasons we use dated tags and we don't leave tags undated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, this has got to be one of the stranger things I've seen on Wikipedia. You seriously are edit warring with a bot to place a incorrect date on maintenance tag and then wasting more time complaining about it? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong edits with multiple ":"

Please stop the bot before we have hundreds of ":". — AlexSm 15:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, noticed this too. I've deactivated that task [5]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for deactivating it. I'd guess some change in 1.19 confused the bot. Anomie⚔ 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Doubly fixed now. It was a combination of two things:

  1. T36865, resulting in the API returning no interwiki prefixes.
  2. AnomieBOT's code didn't specifically test for "no interwiki prefixes exist" (since that shouldn't ever happen here), and the GIGO result was that it would end up matching the ":" at the beginning of links using the colon trick.

The bug is fixed, and AnomieBOT's code has been adjusted to match nothing if no interwiki links exist. Please don't hesitate to stop the bot again if any other problems come up. Anomie⚔ 20:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Free Culture (book)

The article on Free Culture (book) was flagged with: {{Copypaste|date=March 2012}}

I'd like to make sure I understand what triggered that. This book was released under a Creative Commons license. I added numerous quotes from the book to this article. I suspect that the number of quotes may have been the trigger. If so, it should not be a problem in this case because of the use of the Creative Commons license.

If something else is involved, I'd like to know. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are confused. AnomieBOT did not add that tag. The tag was added by Theredproject (talk · contribs) in the previous edit; you should ask him/her about it. All AnomieBOT did was add the current date (|date=March 2012) to the tag so the article would be placed in Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections from March 2012 instead of Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections. Anomie⚔ 12:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again!

Wow! Anomie, thanks for dating my {{citation needed}}s and {{weasel}}s! You've really brightened my day! ◗●◖ falkreon (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Rescuing incompetent bot-ops

Hello again AnomieBOT, you keep making life easier and easier at BFRAs. Thanks very much, now I don't have to go through the (previously) error prone task of listing approved BRFAs in the archives. Should any effort be put into saving ops from their own incompetence? I've seen rescues like that at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#read this one or two times a month, and it seems like something a bot could to do cheaply, but is the dev effort worth it? Dunno. Kthx bi! Josh Parris 05:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I find being unable to follow the simple instructions for listing a BRFA to be a good indicator of WP:BOTNOTNOW. Anomie⚔ 23:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but the bureaucracy demands NOTNOW be filed appropriately. Josh Parris 23:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

BAGBot: Cannot notify operator of YFdyh-bot - fixed

I could not find the operator of the bot in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/YFdyh-bot in order to notify them of the {{Operator assistance needed}} on that BRFA. 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⚡ 20:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear AnomieBOT, you could check the page history to see who created it. Whilst not always the op, they will almost invariably know who the op is meant to be. Josh Parris 22:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Or I could just fix the bot to recognize {{botop}}. Anomie⚔ 22:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Possibly easier. Josh Parris 23:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot breaks WP notifications - can you add a delay?

Hi,

When a bot edits an article immediately after I do, some of Wikipedia's notification systems break. For one example, when I check my contributions list to see if other Wikipedians have felt the need to modify my edits, I see a (top). But when a bot edits an article, the "(top)" notification gets triggered but nothing of interest has happened.

I can think of two ways to fix this. Maybe there are others.

  1. Instead of tracking the list of edits that have just been made, the bot could track what happened seven days ago.
  2. The bot could continue to track the list of edits that have just been made, but when the bot sees an edit that would benefit from that bot's functionality, it could make a note of that edit/page and come back in seven days time and make the useful changes.

This wouldn't even reduce the functionality of your bot - the functionality of your bot (adding "date" fields to templates), has no urgency.

Can you fix this? Gronky (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It certainly would reduce the functionality of the bot, as it would mean things would be wrong for a week before they got fixed. Although in the case of maintenance template dating, it would just mean that User:Helpful Pixie Bot would date the tags instead at about the same time AnomieBOT would.
Look at it this way: a Wikipedian did feel the need to modify your edits, by dating your maintenance tags or by fixing your reference errors or what not. If you really don't want AnomieBOT to clean up after you for some reason, don't make mistakes it has to fix. Anomie⚔ 23:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
For some things, it's good to act in less than seven days, but for the functionality of adding a date value to Template:When, a delay of a week would not harm the functionality. And a tag without a "date" value isn't a mistake - the "date" value for Template:when is optional.
AnomieBOT (and some other bots) should also be fixed. Wikipedia has yet to develop a "culture" for bots, so bot behaviour sometimes lacks consideration for non-bot editors. That'll fix itself with time.
For the cases where immediate action isn't necessary (like putting a "date" value in Template:when), can you add a delay? Gronky (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The date is only "optional" in the sense that a bot will come along and add it for you if you leave it out. This is specifically mentioned in the template documentation.
As for waiting seven days before fixing it, that's not going to happen without a much wider consensus. Sorry. Anomie⚔ 02:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's disappointing. This sort of thing makes Wikipedia frustrating. Gronky (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagging run on behalf of WP:BIOPHYS

Hey there Anomie(BOT), we're trying to kickstart WP:BIOPHYS so a lil' help from your bot would be appreciated. Specifically, we're looking to tag the following categories (no recursion). Default run configuration for AnomieBOT is fine (inherit assessment class, bypass redirects, etc...). The template is {{WikiProject Biophysics|class=|importance=}}.

  1. Category:Animal flight
  2. Category:Bioelectrochemistry
  3. Category:Biological matter
  4. Category:Biomechanics
  5. Category:Biophysicists
  6. Category:Bird flight
  7. Category:Cell adhesion molecules
  8. Category:Cell movement
  9. Category:Ion channels
  10. Category:Locomotion
  11. Category:Magnetoception
  12. Category:Membrane biology
  13. Category:Protein targeting
  14. Category:SIGLEC
  15. Category:Structural biology
  16. Category:Welsh biophysicists

Some other categories are being considered as well, but the above are pretty solid for a first run (discussion).

Many thanks.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. If I don't do anything by Monday, ping me. Anomie⚔ 23:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Ping. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Although oddly enough, I had started (and then not had time to finish) work on this a few hours before your ping. Doing... now. Anomie⚔ 13:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

{{cbsb link}}

Would you consider adding {{cbsb link}} to the AltLinkTemplateSubster task in the same way that you have {{cfb link}} and {{cbb link}}? Let me know if there is anything I need to do to make this happen. Thanks. Billcasey905 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Anomie⚔ 00:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

ITN

We seem to be having a problem w/ITN archiving: User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/ITNCArchiver --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Also replied at Wikipedia talk:In the news#March archive is broken. Anomie⚔ 00:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Replacing expired templates

Generally good to see bot substitution of {{show by date}}, although that should probably be avoided in the User: space e.g. this edit refactored a test page which probably should remain intact to support occasional tests and experiments... or else devise some tagging to flag the page so the bot can leave it intact. Dl2000 (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll probably have the bot recognize dummy parameters |nobot= and |demo= as signs to leave a particular transclusion alone; how's that sound? Anomie⚔ 15:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I ended up adding recognition of |nosubst= and |demo=. Anomie⚔ 23:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

BadImage Task (formerly run by SoxBot)

SoxBot did perform some Interwiki tasks in simple, commons, and meta wiki. This would be a good enough reason to initiate another BRFA for Cyberbot I however, I would like to know if you took over the bad image task?—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 12:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

TParis said he was going to take it over, although if he changes his mind I can easily enough take it up.
As for what SoxBot did on other wikis, you can't request that here. You'd have to follow the bot policy at each of those other wikis to request permission for each one. Commons's equivalent to WP:BRFA is at commons:Commons:Bots/Requests, Meta's is at meta:Meta:Requests for adminship, and Simple's process is described at simple:Wikipedia:Bots#Bot approvals. I'm not familiar with any of those, nor do I know whether anyone else has taken any of them up. Anomie⚔ 15:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
If you didn't do it and TParis didn't do it, I guess I can do and at least give Cyberbot I a job to do here. See User:Cyberbot I for a list of tasks it is capable of doing. Cyberbot I is ready to execute tasks at this time. What do you think.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 15:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll have to talk to TParis. Anomie⚔ 21:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
TParis directed me to you under the impression that you already took over the task. But Ok. Just let me know. My bot is ready to take on the task.—cyberpower ChatOnline 21:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I hate to rush things but, did you talk to him yet? I really would like to know if I should take over that task because my is ready to handle it.—cyberpower ChatOffline 00:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going to initiate a BRFA and have Cyberbot I get approved for the {{badimage}} task. If you have any objections, let me know.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. Anomie⚔ 23:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Blohm & Voss BV 238 destruction

Please read: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_238#Conflicting_accounts_of_the_destruction_of_the_aircraft.

Cricobr (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is a computer program, and cannot read. All AnomieBOT did to that article in this edit was fix the big red error left in the previous edit when GraemeLeggett didn't completely remove the reference. You'll have to discuss the issue with GraemeLeggett; you could also ask for help at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Do note, BTW, that Wikipedia is itself generally not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Anomie⚔ 16:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Company infobox edits

Hi, Anomie. Do you think this is something which could be done by bot or not? The problem is that in a lot of cases instead of using a blank skeleton infobox template, it is copied from some existing article. Maybe you have any advice concerning this issue? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It could, but do note that bots that just change around non-displaying template parameters and bypass template redirects (i.e. doing nothing that is visible to a reader) are often denied. You'd have to come up with a good reasoning for it. Anomie⚔ 18:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Arkansas Militia in the Civil War

Would you mind running the bot on Arkansas Militia in the Civil War? Thanks!Aleutian06 (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The bot runs all the time. According to the log, the bot was not fixing anything in there because a <ref> contained another <ref>, which turned out to be because someone accidentally removed the end of the ref while fixing a Google Books link. The other error was because one list-defined reference wasn't actually being used anywhere in the page, which is not something AnomieBOT will fix. Anomie⚔ 19:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hellknowz is BAGger

Wikipedia:BAG/Status as of http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BAG/Status&oldid=484494970 shows for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/CeraBot_II Hellknowz as last editor but not last BAGger. Josh Parris 06:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The bot ignores minor edits towards "last BAGger". Anomie⚔ 11:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Aww, for a moment I thought I was special ;) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

BRFA for user account

Hi! I'm wondering if AnomieBOT could handle cases like these [6] somehow, where bot and user are the same (i.e. no bot account). Possibly, only notify if the account has almost no edits or has "Bot" in the name. Otherwise assume it is a user requesting approval and let BAG clarify details. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Anomie⚔ 18:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! :) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
[7] Similar :) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the bot just got confused because the BRFA was already open when the new code was started. I ran it in testing mode with a clean database, and it would have posted the message from line 752 instead. Anomie⚔ 04:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought that might have been it, cheers. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues problem

After a user made an error here (missing a curky bracket at the start of orphan), Anomiebor made quite a mess of it in the next edit[8]. Seems a rather unusual set of circumstances, no idea if you can do anything to prevent this. Fram (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just that they forgot a bracket at the start of {{orphan}}, they also deleted the one at the end of {{multiple issues}}. I can't think of anything to do to prevent this sort of case, really, besides just leaving more of the broken dates in Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template for humans to fix. Maybe I should do that, though; I'm not sure. Anomie⚔ 16:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
As long as this remains the exception, I don't think you should change a lot about how you work now. If some kind of error gets more frequent, it can of course be corrected or disabled in the code somehow, but for now I don't see the need yet. Fram (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It wouldn't catch that case (the length is only 22 characters), but to catch cases where someone tacks on much more than just a date I've decided to have the bot not "fix" any tags where the existing date parameter is over 30 characters, on the theory that something that much longer than just "September 2012" should probably have a human look at it. Anomie⚔ 05:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This disambiguation page is currently linked from a large number of articles

With this edit a template {{incominglinks}} was placed on a dab page called Edward Hungerford in fact just one article was linked to it. It seems very drastic to place a template with the wording "This disambiguation page is currently linked from a large number of articles" when there is only one article link to it. I think you need to adjust the algorithm that places the template onto such dab pages so that there is is for a "large number of articles". -- PBS (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it was placed with the previous edit by Boleyn (talk · contribs). If you look closely at the diff you linked, you'll see that the template was already there before AnomieBOT's edit, and all AnomieBOT did was add |date=April 2012 to it. Anomie⚔ 11:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
My mistake. Sorry to have troubled you. -- PBS (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for references for Abnormal behaviour of birds in captivity

The article is essentially a list of abnormal behaviours linking to individual articles on these behaviours. The individual articles are all fully referenced with verifiable sources. Does the 'list' article really need to contain these same references? DrChrissy (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The tag was added by Portillo (talk · contribs) in this edit; all AnomieBOT did was add |date=April 2012. But yes, the list article should contain its own references. If the individual articles are properly referenced, thus should be easy as you can just copy the appropriate refs. Anomie⚔ 10:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

[Bug report] Template As of correcting

Could you check if the user didn't included a correct behaviour of the {{As of}} template and fix it? Example is here and the actual fix is in the revision after that? mabdul 15:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, should be fixed now. The bot had been assuming that people who knew enough to separate the month and date into separate parameters would also know enough to put them in the right order; now the bot will check all three date parameters for various permutations. Thanks for the bug report! Anomie⚔ 00:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How did you find a link?

If I had tried harder I might have. When I couldn't right away, I used another article with the same information as a source. After going back and looking at my contributions I saw mine was not the last edit to South Tryon Square. I forgot that if there was a ref name I must have used it twice!

Anyway, thanks.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT literally goes through the entire history of the page looking for an old version that has the needed reference. It's a bot, so it can do this quickly and doesn't get bored. Anomie⚔ 12:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

::But there was no link in my version and I needed to find one to verify something. The bot added one.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction. I was looking at the article I added.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: U-8047 Replica Submarine

When I origionaly wrote this artical it was complete and acurate. Unfortunatly many people editid it down and down and because of lack of citations. If you would alow our web site to be used for citations see www.u-boat.co.uk it would be easy to change the artical back to it's former glory. Sory if speling bad, I have learning dificulty.Uboater (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You are confused. AnomieBOT did not add the {{advert}} tag. The tag was added in the previous edit by 2.100.24.3 (talk). Anomie⚔ 12:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Caffeine

Bot seems to be having an edit war with humans at Caffeine. I don't know whether moving the refs into the section that is transcluded into the Red Bull article was correct or not, but I would like a human to take a look at the situation. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I moved the cites in the named references from elsewhere in the article to that section so they would be available in that section when transcluded into the Red Bull article. In place of those complete references elsewhere in the article, I put the shortened references to them (<reference name="something" />). I don't see anything wrong with this, and I don't see any errors from it in either article. The bot edits break the references in the Red Bull article (since they cannot find a complete cite with that name anywhere in that article)

I did fix another, unrelated, orphaned ref (name=svkemtid1914) elsewhere in the article. The original author never included a complete cite there, and I could not find one after a little research, so I commented it out. The article no longer has any ref errors.

It's not clear why the bot chose to do what it did here, which was to move existing, working refs, and not fix the actual broken one.

Also, I'd like to suggest that the bot avoid edit wars like this. If a bot edit is reverted, it should not immediately perform the same edit again. For now, I'm disabling the bot editing on Caffeine.— AlanM1 (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that in the vast majority of the cases, people who revert this task are doing so because they don't understand what the bot is doing. So when it redoes its edit, it posts on the reverter's talk page to explain the most common error and to explain what to do if the bot edit still needs to be undone. In this case, I adjusted the bot to completely skip the "move refs out of templates" fix if the article contains <noinclude>, <includeonly>, or <onlyinclude>, as that means someone is probably doing something strange with transcluding one article into another (I thought there was some guideline recommending against doing that, but I can't seem to find it now).
The bot didn't fix the svkemtid1914 citation because it couldn't find any complete cite either. Anomie⚔ 12:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about strange - it seems an important and useful feature that I suppose, like anything, could be overused. In this case, someone originally just copied the rendered text (not even the wikitext) from the Caffeine article to the Red Bull article, including (literally) the footnote numbers in brackets, which of course didn't work :) It seemed like exactly what transclusion was designed for.
Hopefully I did the right thing by removing it. I did spend some time researching to find where the original source of the fact was, but gave up. This is complicated by the fact that so many other sources copy from Wikipedia and show up in the searches :( — AlanM1 (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the copy-paste was certainly not correct either. But the transclusion is likely to confuse new editors. As for removing the svkemtid1914 reference, it's probably for the best. I'd guess the IP who added it copied it from somewhere, but there's no way to determine from where. Anomie⚔ 17:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrongly tagging pages as previously deleted pages

Bot just tagged Talk:Cybil with a notice [9] that the article was previously deleted -- but the previous AFD was for the article Cybil Sadiq, not Cybil! :( —Lowellian (reply) 18:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And it did the same for Talk:Pratyusha [10], marking it with an AFD for Abhay. —Lowellian (reply) 18:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
And for Talk:Ulises [11], marking it with an AFD for Halyn. And given that I found these in a few minutes of searching, there may be a lot more errors. Please fix this ASAP. —Lowellian (reply) 18:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I shut off [12] this particular function of the bot for the time being until this gets fixed. —Lowellian (reply) 18:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Cybil was deleted on 9 January 2011 per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybil Sadiq. It was a redirect to that page.
Pratyusha was deleted on 3 February 2007 per the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhay. It was a mass nomination.
Ulises is a false positive, because the deletion on 20 July 2007 referred to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halyn as precedent.
Please check a little more carefully next time. Anomie⚔ 21:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I do have an idea for avoiding false positives like Ulises, which I'll try code up later today. Anomie⚔ 21:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, my apologies on "Pratyusha"; in that case, yes, the tag was appropriate.
However, "Cybil" is still a false positive, and future cases like that should not be thus tagged. The bot tags with the "old AfD multi" template, which should not be applied to cases like "Cybil", since it results in the text (in this case), "This page was nominated for deletion on January 2 2011. The result of the discussion was delete." But that is not true, since the page was never nominated for deletion; it was at that time redirecting to a page nominated for deletion, which isn't the same thing. Marking the disambiguation page "Cybil" as a previously AFDed page doesn't make sense when the page is completely different from and doesn't even have the same topic/subject as the actual AFDed page "Cybil Sadiq", which was about a Pakistani model. Also, the text of the tag on the talk page would be even more confusing to non-admins, who wouldn't even be able to see the deleted page history of "Cybil" and see that at some point it was a redirect to "Cybil Sadiq". Redirects to AFDed articles, rather than the AFDed articles themselves, shouldn't be tagged with this template.
—Lowellian (reply) 08:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The fix I applied yesterday will prevent situations like Cybil from being tagged in the future. Basically, the fix is that AfDs found by looking at the edit summaries will not be listed if the AfD doesn't link back to the article in question. Anomie⚔ 19:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding arbitrary dates to "Update after" templates

One of the documented forms of usage of {{Update after}} is this bare form (i.e. with no date). In fact, it's the first example: Template:Update_after#Examples. This is to mean that the information is already out of date, and not as of any particular time (just somewhere in the past). AnomieBOT, however, comes along and adds the current date to these, which implies a precision that does not exist. I don't believe it is correct to do this. The no-date form of the template exists for the specific reason documented and, if used that way, should be respected. — AlanM1 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Anomie⚔ 12:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Undone. The template documentation specifically states "If parameters 1, 2, and 3 are left blank, a bot will add it later." AnomieBOT is such a bot. And not having the bot do it causes Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating to fill up. Anomie⚔ 15:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
There is that first example in the docs, though, and I stand by the original statement about the purpose of a null date, but I'm a database geek/purist :) No big deal, really. — AlanM1 (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflict with Commons transfer bot

See page history of File:Portuguese Ibex Cabrera Goat.svg. When Commons fair use upload bot (talk · contribs) transfers files from Commons, they sometimes have a Commons "copyvio" template on them, which conflicts with our local {{Copyvio}}. AnomieBOT then treats these as if they were meant to be English Wikipedia copyvio templates, and attempts to subst them, obliterating the whole file page [13].

Until the Commons bot can be instructed to remove the "copyvio" tag during transfer (which I've suggested here), would it be possible to instruct AnomieBOT to leave file pages created by that other bot alone? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India

Hi, Thanks for your review at the article Hyderabad, India, Please see this] source, of Deccan Chronicle, Published on 26 October 2011, with the title "Be a Pal and stop polluting" the news reads "Hyderabad is one of the 16 most polluted cities of India and the State Pollution Control Board says that the situation is getting from bad to worse", I hope this source is enough to support the text. Please let me know so that we shall remove the template [citation needed] which you applied in this edit. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please look more closely at the diff you linked: AnomieBOT did not add the {{cn}} template, it just added |date=April 2012 to a template that was already there. The template itself was added by Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs) in the previous edit. You should talk to them instead. Anomie⚔ 14:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for bothering you, :) Regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Khudabadi Sindhi Swarankar

There is no dispute in article. There is no partiality in writing of article. Gespee (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this edit by MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs) while thinking you are referring to the subsequent edit by AnomieBOT. Note that the tag was added by MatthewVanitas, AnomieBOT only added the |date=April 2012. You'll probably want to discuss the matter with MatthewVanitas. Anomie⚔ 12:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

deletes tfd entries

at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. deleted nomination dates april 13, 12, 11, 10 in separate edits. pls restore.

eg diff – deletion of april 13 noms
65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

this is the page @ "April 13" prior to the bot's malfunction: 488415526. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT removes transclusion of daily pages from the main TFD list when all TFDs on said daily page are marked as closed. The bot operated correctly in removing those dates. Anomie⚔ 22:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
my mistake, thanx for the response. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Modify archival of ITN/C

Can you please update the bot so that the number of days of nominations on ITN/C at any given time is seven instead of five? -- tariqabjotu 21:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I can if there is consensus to change this timeframe. I don't see any discussion at WT:ITN. Anomie⚔ 22:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Seriously? You're seriously going to make me do that? This is such a harmless change that, had a bot not been an intermediary, would have required no discussion. Forget it then. I am not going to start a meaningless discussion for the sake of bureaucracy. -- tariqabjotu 01:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Champak

You ruined the article champak--Napsync (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the changes were to the article you think "ruined" it, AnomieBOT did not make them. Anomie⚔ 19:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

TfD

Hey, I see that AnomieBOT normally creates the new TfD page each day (e.g. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 29), but it didn't seem to do it today – I had to create Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 30 manually. Any reason for this and will it happen again (it messes with Twinkle nominations when the page doesn't exist)? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed I upgraded some software on AnomieBOT's server over the weekend, and apparently HTTP-Message in version 6.03 has decided to start mangling line endings in application/x-www-form-urlencoded POSTs, which was causing all AnomieBOT edits to fail. I've changed AnomieBOT to use multipart/form-data instead, which has greater overhead but does not suffer from this problem. See also [14]. Anomie⚔ 12:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Not going to pretend I understood all of that, but thanks for fixing it :) Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert Ford (Outlaw)

I undid revision 491215202 by AnomieBOT which was a reference edit on Robert Ford (outlaw) because Robert Ford is a non-fictional person and the Seattle Times reference is based on a fictional work with no sources. Jeff Smith (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like AnomieBOT explained the situation to you already , and the article is fixed. Anomie⚔ 22:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot addition to span cite

Hi. Mousing over this [15] change by your bot flags up: This claim needs references to reliable sources from May 2012. Not so. The cite tag was placed May 2012. It is not asking for reliable sources from May 2012. Please reword or remove. Thanks. Writegeist (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That is the wording for that type of template, and has nothing to do with the bot. If you want it changed, you'll have to bring it up for wider discussion, possibly at Template talk:Citation needed span and/or Template talk:Fix-span and/or Template talk:Citation needed and/or Template talk:Fix. If you want to make a concrete suggestion, I'd suggest you suggest something like "tagged since May 2012". Anomie⚔ 23:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Writegeist (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Olestra

Hello, Bot; I am reverting you as you seem to have added a second closing quote on two REF tags that each already had one. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If quotes are used for the name or group fields of a <ref> (or any other HTML-like tag), they must be either ' or ", that is the characters U+0027 or U+0022. The quote that the ref tag "already" had is neither of these characters; instead it is U+201D, ”. When it is used in pair with U+201C (“) as in <ref name=“odd”>, AnomieBOT will be able to make the expected fix to <ref name="odd">. But in that article, for some unknown reason, you are pairing U+201D with U+0022 instead. So AnomieBOT's best guess was that you intended the name of the reference to be " Pg. 46372”" and accidentally left off the closing " needed for valid syntax.
Note that the only reason EagerToddler39's edit here "fixed" it was because MediaWiki seems to entirely ignore the screwed-up name parameter in <ref name="Pg. 46372”>, treating it as equivalent to a plain <ref>. This removes the error that was attracting the bot, but is still wrong and would be fixed by the bot again if reference errors occur again in the future. I have applied the correct fix.
Note, BTW, that MOS:QUOTEMARKS recommends that U+0022 ("straight quotes") be used in preference to U+201C/U+201D ("curly quotes"). But I'll leave it up to you and the other editors of that article to fix (or not fix) that issue. Anomie⚔ 16:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you--They all seemed the same to me in the diff window and even the edit window. Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Bot requests#Removal of deprecated template

Ping, regarding the above section. --Izno (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Real Life Barnstar
this has true events Chinhim (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Unsigned has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:Unsigned2 has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:Quotedfrom has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:Undated has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:Uns-ip has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:Unsigned IP has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:Unsigned2Fix has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:UnsignedIP2 has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:UnsignedIP2Fix has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:User actual has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:Warning origin 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⚡ 11:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

|}

TemplateSubster: Template:Unsigned has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:Unsigned2 has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:Quotedfrom has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:Undated has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:Uns-ip has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:Unsigned IP has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:Unsigned2Fix has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:UnsignedIP2 has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:UnsignedIP2Fix has too many transclusions

TemplateSubster: Template:User actual has too many transclusions

Substing CURRENTMONTHNAME & CURRENTYEAR?

Hi Anomie! Should AnomieBOT automatically susbt the {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} AND {{CURRENTYEAR}} templates, such as on Mora (linguistics)? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't know to look at the page in the first place as long as it doesn't see one of the maintenance categories in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. I'm not sure there's even a way to track when those magic words are used (although I could be mistaken). Anomie⚔ 07:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The editor concerned was Softtest123 (talk · contribs) who did several of these, all in the last month. I've fixed them up, and left a note. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Anomie. I did a text search using AWB and found a few articles where they shouldn't have "subst:" added, such as List of Premiers of Queensland by time in office and List of Prime Ministers of Sweden. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Those two examples have the {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}/{{CURRENTYEAR}} outside of all cleanup templates, whereas those in Mora (linguistics) were inside a {{no footnotes}} cleanup tag. I can think of other cases where {{CURRENTYEAR}} must not be substituted - for example, in the inflation calcs used in articles like James Cudworth and NBR 224 and 420 Classes. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
That has come up before, actually. Anomie⚔ 20:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Choocheu

I've changed the wording on Ranjana Khanna's page so that it follows wiki guidelines (which it had already been passed through for more than two years without a problem, but for some reason today someone put a tag on the top of the page. So I've made some changes to the wording. Would it be possible for the tag at the top of the page to be removed now? Many thanks. Choocheu (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You should ask Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs), who placed the tag. All AnomieBOT did was add |date=June 2012 to it, so the page would be properly categorized for maintenance. Anomie⚔ 11:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Monthly cleanup categories

I think the bot wa a bit too eager in creating cleanup cats for the current month, the cats for July 2012 were already created on 5 June. Not a real problem of course, but perhaps better to wait with them until the last days of the previous month instead... Fram (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How embarrassing! When I was testing to make sure the new additions for AnomieBOT 65 would work correctly, I adjusted the timing so the bot would create the next month's categories 30 days before the new month instead of only 1 day before. And then I forgot to take that out before updating the live bot.  Fixed now. Feel free to delete those categories (they'll be recreated 30 June), or just leave them if they don't bother anyone. Anomie⚔ 12:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deletion seems a bit pointless since they will be created eventually anyway. Thanks for fixing this (and for taking over this task). Fram (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikilove for you

A small token for you
I am sending you some RAM as wikilove because food and drink would have been pointless for you and you most probably can't look after kitten so I am making my own to send you. Thank you for fixing citation link on Anil Kumble. I was a minute late. Vyom25 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
AnomieBOT thanks you. Anomie⚔ 17:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Danish

Regarding this, one of us is "making errors". :-) GFHandel ♬  08:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the problem by using {{dk icon}}. Skål GFHandel ♬  09:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Glad you figured it out. {{Danish}} is, of course, the wrong template. Anomie⚔ 10:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My talk archive

At User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 1, the bot keeps trying to change a link to a usurped username, in a way that destroys the meaning of the archived content [16]. Please stop making this particular edit, so that I can correct it. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's preserving the meaning of the archived content: the user that comment is referring to has been renamed to User:Nard the Bard for some time, and now User:N has been usurped and belongs to a different person. But if you want, feel free to place {{bots|deny=AnomieBOT}} on the page. Or, for that matter, I can fully protect it for you if you'd rather have that done. Anomie⚔ 23:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
At this point, I have to admit to being confused as to whether it's really the same user or not (both usernames link to the same page, and it's not what I remember). But in any case, I'll use that bots-deny tag, which should take care of it. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations/Completed/33#N tmp → N is the usurpation request. Anomie⚔ 01:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I'm not quite certain what you did ... but thank you, because I'm sure it must be for the betterment of the Cathy Segal-Garcia page.

This is my first attempt at creating a page, so I have no clue what most of the codes mean, etc. Thank you for any help in the future too! Redlippedlady (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What AnomieBOT did to that page is add the current month and year as a parameter to maintenance templates, so for example the page will be placed in Category:BLP articles lacking sources from June 2012 instead of just Category:BLP articles lacking sources. This sorting by date flagged for maintenance makes it easier for people who want to work on finding sources for BLP articles or other maintenance issues to look at the ones that have been flagged most recently or that have been flagged for the longest. Anomie⚔ 15:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Afd-merge from

Wakey, wakey AnomieBOT. You are supposed to sort out Template:Afd-merge from after merge discussions are closed. Or is it something that we mere mortals are not doing properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Liefting (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Which instance of the template is it not handling? Anomie⚔ 17:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
On the {Afd-merge from} template it says "Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}." If it is not done it clutters up Category:All articles to be merged with talk pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I checked the first few transclusions of the template, and all were either not yet merged (or at least the merge-from article was not a redirect) or were merged to the "wrong" article and therefore listed at User:AnomieBOT/Afd-mergefrom report for human attention as noted at Template:Afd-merge from#Bot information. I see a fair number in there where something that was supposed to be merged to a main topic's article is instead redirecting to some associated list (e.g. "List of X characters") or sub-article. Anomie⚔ 23:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah. Ok. Ta. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Error at tagging

Hi, the bot incorrectly duplicated the notification about an old AFD at Talk:Jurij Moškon. --Eleassar my talk 14:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've set the bot to skip talk pages with {{ArticleHistory}} on them. Anomie⚔ 02:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

{{Afd-merge from}} & {{Afd-mergeto}}

Undid revision 497289829 by KTC (talk) - err, yes they do. Just search for "{{{date|}}}" in the wikitext of each template. They populate the dated subcats of Category:Articles to be merged

— Anomie @ Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates

Fair enough if it's just me being an idiot. However, if that's the case please fix these: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. They all clearly shows the date before AnomieBOT edit, but not after.... -- KTC (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, thanks for the bug report. Edits reverted, bot adjusted. Although I probably need to make a better fix later when I have time. Anomie⚔ 11:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Your statements requested on

..the Talk:Koch family article in RE: "Unreliable Source" tag you added to my citation. See you there. If you don't argue your position over the next 24 hours or so, I'll be removing the tag. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally. You also tagged the edit as "Not in citation given". It is to there! Read the article. I'm not going to sit here and defend myself against the same accusations over and over and over again, made by different people. I already had the first person who claimed that the material I put in the article wasn't there, then when they actually read the article they recanted their claim. If you don't argue your position over the next 24 hours or so, I'll be removing the tag.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You are confused. AnomieBOT is an automated computer program, and as such has no "position" nor any ability to argue. The tags you mention were added in an earlier edit by Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs); all AnomieBOT did was add |date=June 2012 so the article would be placed into the correct maintenance categories. Anomie⚔ 02:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Too fast

I know your bot does good work, but is there a way to check if the page is still being editted by the same person. I was doing some extensive changes including fixing a botched template that I had just ... well botched... and I wasn't paying attention when I hit save and I didn't read the warning and hit save again and lost all my changes. something small i know speednat (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about Ostrich? The bot waited 20 minutes before editing both times that it edited. If that's not sufficient, you could always use {{in use}}, which for those two tasks increases the delay to 2 hours. Anomie⚔ 10:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sault Ste. Marie

Not a bug but I'm just curious about this edit. I know why the "what" template is dated but why change the weather box to move the |metric first= yes up a line and add |date=June 2012? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at the {{Weather box}} and I don't think the |date= is part of the template. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The documentation states: "A source should always be provided - if, however, there is no source, you can add |date=Month Year to the template, which will help sort the article into a subcat of Category:Articles with unsourced statements."
Since the date template is not required, I have removed {{Weather box}} from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates so AnomieBOT won't add the date to every instance of the template. GoingBatty (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I also removed the parameter from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. GoingBatty (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I use the template all the time but rarely look at the documentation. And I never use it unless I have a source. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The bit about removing the linebreak before |metric is a bug. The other bit... I guess I'll have to give the bot a better configuration file than Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates (note the bot never would have added it to every instance of the template, just when someone put an undated {{citation needed}} or other tag on a page with the template...). Anomie⚔ 22:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it might have been some arcane thing from the MOS that I should have been doing. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
New configuration file is in place, seems to work in quick testing. Anomie⚔ 17:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, there was one bug hiding in there. I reused the code that had special-cased {{rp|needed=yes}} and neglected to notice that it had made sense at the time to strip whitespace from that template but didn't make sense in the more general case... Anomie⚔ 16:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for my improper explanation - thanks for setting me straight! GoingBatty (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
And thank you two for reporting the problem to me so I could fix the bot! Anomie⚔ 16:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it necessary?

Is the tag on Prince Nayef's page really necessary? It was put by an editor who began to edit yesterday. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Which tag, {{recent death}}? Probably. Why don't you try discussing it on the article's talk page? Anomie⚔ 22:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

ITN

Can you extend the time before archiving ITN nominations by two days per this discussion? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Drink up!
Hoping this helps to quench your bot thirst… Congrats on all the hard work ;-) benzband (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
AnomieBOT thanks you. Anomie⚔ 16:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing Ref

I checked out a few of the references your bot could not fix (great work btw.!) to do it manually, and stumbled over this edit:

In [25] the reference was removed due to a typo. This shows the limitations of a script ^^. I have no clue how you could prevent this, maybe doing a plain string search for "name" and do not remove those that contain that string? I'll readd the corrected reference manually for now. -- Windharp (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, preventing this isn't as easy as i initially thought, as that would collide with some of your other correction rules (I checked a few similiar edits to see if that problem occured more often, but it seems rather isolated. Except for a case of vandalism the bot "authorized" I could not spot another mistake during the last about 20 or so similiar edits). Unless you (can) use regular expressions to scan for valid tags it will be a lot more difficult than that, I suppose. ^^ --Windharp (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Brilliantly conceived and very helpful. Anarchangel (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable isn't being updated

Is there something wrong with the bot? User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable hasn't been updated in 18 hours and there have been requests that were approved/declined. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No, something is wrong with Wikipedia: lag has been over 5 seconds all day. Many bots, including AnomieBOT, will not edit when lag is this high to avoid contributing to the overload. See [26] for the current lag status. Anomie⚔ 00:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that, but it makes sense. Ryan Vesey Review me!

ITN/C Missing a Date

I know that AnomieBOT was inactive today (July 1st) due to WikiPedia server issues. Now that AnomieBOT has resumed again, it added the section to July 2nd to ITN/C, but completely skipped July 1st. Will AnomieBOT catch this, and go back and add it, or is it something that you'll need to fix to avoid causing issues with AnomieBOT coming to the page on July 3rd? Thanks for the help! I only bring this up because I ended up putting the ITN nomination for UEFA Euro 2012 under June 30th because of AnomieBOT's downtime, and I wanted to move it to July 1st where it belongs so the archives stay factually correct. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 01:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be manually added. Anomie⚔ 14:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for the help! -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Extra date when template already dated, albeit incorrectly

Hi, see this edit: the {{out of date}} already had a date, but it had been put in a positional parameter in error. Is there any chance of modifying AnomieBOT so that if the cleanup template has a positional parameter, and that parameter contains a valid date (in this case "May 2012"), it could be replaced by the |date= parameter? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT already does that for positional parameter 1, actually. I just wonder if it could cause any false positives checking all other positional parameters. If I can't think of any (and no one else jumps in to point any out), I'll go ahead and do it. Anomie⚔ 16:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 Done Anomie⚔ 21:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

A variant: this was not a missing date, but a typo. Is it feasible to check for "obvious" typos like |dtae=? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly feasible, the bot already checks for "Date" and "dates" in generic templates. Does anyone have a list of "obvious" typos? Anomie⚔ 02:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject tagger request for WP:WikiProject Thailand

For all articles in the categories listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thailand/List of categories, except Korean War, Vietnam War, World War I and World War II, please. Project notified at WT:WikiProject Thailand#Project tagger run (lack of opposition assumed to mean approval). The list has a separate section for biographical article categories, so those may also be tagged for WP:WikiProject Biography also. I'll post a notice on the project talk page (just realised this was required too). Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait then to give WPBIO a chance to respon, and until after the hackathon anyway. Ping me to remind me once WPBIO has had a chance to weigh in. Anomie⚔ 07:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Ping; it's been a week, without opposition. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bump this, but perhaps you missed the above message? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Please do keep bumping, I've been busy lately and I'll forget if you don't keep reminding me. One of these days I'll find time to double-check the discussions and start the run. Anomie⚔ 20:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay. (Bump.) --Paul_012 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
And again. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Doing... If there are any problems (e.g. it turns out one of the categories should not be tagged after all), please post at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/WikiProjectTagger to stop the bot. Anomie⚔ 20:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Stopped. Mysterious errors that I can't reproduce. Sorry. Anomie⚔ 03:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not knowing what else to do, I've gone through the WP Thailand talk pages which transcluded the redirects and bypassed the redirects while assessing the articles. This should help avoid the mysterious bug? How about restarting the task only for WikiProject Thailand? --Paul_012 (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that the bot shouldn't have had any trouble with the redirects in the first place, so I have no idea why it did there. Anomie⚔ 14:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Closing FFD discussion when a file is on Commons and a second file desciption is on en.wp

Could you look at this DRV on File:Graham_at_NRB_1977.jpg[27] following AnomieBOT closing the earlier FFD.[28] Thincat (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WT:FFD#Deletion of local image description pages for Commons files. Anomie⚔ 14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I think it can be coherent to put a FUR at en.wp for an image on which PD is also claimed (on Commons). However, maybe the image should be duplicated. In this case I happen to think the FUR is invalid but not speediable. So, yes, a recommended venue would be helpful.Thincat (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
If an image is allowed to be on Commons, there shouldn't ever be a need for a FUR since anything allowed on Commons must be free to use copyright-wise. And if something isn't free to use copyright-wise, it should be deleted from Commons and uploaded locally with an FUR. Or is there something I'm missing? Anomie⚔ 18:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
(The file description has now been speeedied and the DRV closed as moot). Suppose: I want to include a particular image on en.wp and think there is a solid fair use rationale. I discover the image is at Commons with a free use licence but I am doubtful whether it would be upheld if challenged (or it is being disputed). I create a FUR at en.wp to be on the safe side. (However, I must say I think I would be wise to upload the image to en.wp because if the file is deleted on Commons my access to the file has gone and my FUR description will be properly speedied). You say if deleted from Commons it will be uploaded locally, but how does this happen and how does a FUR materialise unless I do it? I would be wise to preempt this but if I do so will a file here get deleted if it has a name clash with Commons or is bit-by-bit identical? I suspect there is no ideal solution to all this. I am happy to go with your MFD suggestion but I'll raise a different matter at your discussion. Thincat (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
"However, I must say I think I would be wise to upload the image to en.wp because if the file is deleted on Commons my access to the file has gone and my FUR description will be properly speedied" ← Exactly.
I never said the file will be uploaded locally, I said it should be uploaded locally. While it is true that an identical copy of an image on Commons is a candidate for deletion, WP:CSD#F8 would not apply if it were true that the image's license or source status were subject to reasonable doubt. And I expect reasonable admins would hold off on deleting the copy until the Commons deletion request concluded. Anomie⚔ 22:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

New format for {{Multiple issues}}

{{Multiple issues}} has changed the format and the bot is still maintaining based on the old format and messing up the syntax.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 11:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Example? When I tested it yesterday, it didn't seem to have any issue with the new format. Anomie⚔ 13:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking at your contribs, I see Vitamin U. Checking now. Anomie⚔ 13:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Please let me know if you see any more problems! Anomie⚔ 13:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

problem

Hi, can you tell me what is wrong with pages Davor Stefanek and Dragana Cvijic? thank you--Backij (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is just a computer program that, among other things, adds |date=July 2012 to maintenance templates added by human editors. You probably want to ask CouchSurfer222 (talk · contribs) and Dr.pragmatist (talk · contribs), who placed the maintenance tags on those two articles. Anomie⚔ 18:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(Dating maintenance tags: {{Bare urls}}

Hi AnomieBOT, you are always so kind adding the (Dating maintenance tags): {{Bare urls}}. I was wondering if you also do this if the {{bare urls}} template is not added to the edit summary. Lotje ツ (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

{{Bare urls}} will add a page to Category:Articles needing cleanup and Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup if no date is specified; if a (correct) date is specified, it will add other categories instead. AnomieBOT periodically looks through the pages in these categories for templates (or any of their redirects) listed at WP:AWB/DT that are missing the |date= and adds it. AnomieBOT doesn't pay any attention to edit summaries for this task, and in fact doesn't even try to find the edit that added the tag to the article. Anomie⚔ 13:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that's great. Thnks Lotje ツ (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnomieBOT/Archive_4&oldid=1138274455"