User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 6

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Well done! Norman21 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You're just a computer, you don't deserve the Barnstar! --Schmeater (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

2nd Infantry Regiment (United States)

In 2nd Infantry Regiment (United States), Ramrod, line 60 you put (Dating maintenance tags: {{Cn}}) what is that supposed to mean and why? I would like your explanation not a canned explanation from wikipedia.Lansmun (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The {{cn}} template is a shorthand for {{citation needed}}. This marks the article as needing a reference for the statement against which it has been put.

When, at a later date, somebody comes across a statement tagged like this, it can help to know just how long the statement has been unsourced. If it's been a long time since the {{cn}} template was added, this can indicate that it simply cannot be sourced, and so complete removal of the statement might be a reasonable action. Hence, the {{cn}} template has a |date= parameter (as do most of the other cleanup templates), so you would put {{cn|date=May 2013}} or {{cn|date=June 2013}} etc., depending upon when you first decided to add the {{cn}}. A benefit of this is that it will also put the article into a category, there is one for each month, e.g. Category:Articles with unsourced statements from May 2013 - some people like to go to the oldest of these, and fix up what they can. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

PUICloser: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 23 is broken - fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 23 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⚡ 15:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

 fixed --Redrose64 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

PUICloser: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 25 is broken - fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 25 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⚡ 15:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

 fixed --Redrose64 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Conc.. full citations

I have made references to a full webb-address and comment what's importaint from that webbpage. I'm not sure I do understad what You mean. Is references ment to copy the entire source. Anyone can very easy just go to the refered site and read everything. And if all references included long documents whithin the ref and /ref then, 1. editing gets very difficult. 2. from certain souces other signs than the text follows with, during coying. And the text partly becomes a pure blur. 3.Space on the servers has becomming an increasing prpblem. So why copy more than necessary ? 4 and is that legal ? And what about 177 pages ? Or have I simply missunderstood what You ment ? I think I've solved the structue issue, and removesd that one. Could You please take a look at the grammar and spelling again. I agree that formulations were not up to standard. Word "attempt" is now correctly spelled. I appriciate Your work. But if You can check the formulations again I would be greatful. As indeed if You can give a brief answer to my questions concerning "full citation". reguards Boeing720 (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you have given no context, I have no idea what you are talking about. But it seems that you are confused. AnomieBOT is a simple computer program, and what it most likely did is add |date=June 2013 to a maintenance tag added by some human editor. You should look in the history of whichever page you're referring to to look for the edit that actually added the tag, and contact that editor. Anomie⚔ 21:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - @Boeing720: may be referring to this edit, in which AnomieBOT added dates to the maintenance tags added in this previous edit. GoingBatty (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks to you and the bot. I've tried not to make errors when I'm adding wiki mark-ups but mistakes happen and the bot makes my life much easier. Thanks Red Fiona (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

{{csb link}}

Would you consider adding {{csb link}} to the AltLinkTemplateSubster task in the same way that you have {{cfb link}}, {{cbb link}}, and {{cbsb link}}? Let me know if there is anything I need to do to make this happen. Thanks. Billcasey905 (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be easy enough to add. But is it actually going to see use? Anomie⚔ 01:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving Template:Translated_page to talk page

Hello- First, I hope I'm in the right place. I followed a link in an edit summary to User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/TalkTemplateMover, which didn't look like a place to leave a note, so I came here. I noticed that this bot moved a template I placed on Treaty_of_Compiègne_(867). Though I'm not convinced it's the best approach, I now see that the template's stewards think it should be on the talk page instead of the article page itself. That aside, I wanted to alert you that the bot's move did not register on my watchlist. Is that by design? Eric ^talk 12:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have bots hidden from your watchlist? As a (relatively) uncontroversial maintenance edit, the moving of this template is marked as "bot". Anomie⚔ 20:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, forgot I'd hidden them...Thanks! Eric ^talk 15:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Camille Keaton

Hi,

Tried to update the article on Camille Keaton.

It was not adjusting correctly. Perhaps you can take a look at it. Hired Ghoul (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - @Hired Ghoul: -  Done - I fixed the table and made some other minor updates. GoingBatty (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, You did a great job on fixing the article on her. Hired Ghoul (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

grrr edit conflict producer...grrr

TCO (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it editing through the inuse template? (when on a section)?TCO (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. Which edit caused a conflict? The tasks most likely to result in a conflict check for {{inuse}}'s category to increase the waiting time to 2 hours since the most recent edit, but others don't (at least not yet). Anomie⚔ 23:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

On fluorine last night. Not sure which of the last 3, it was. It's also possible I'm mistaken and did not have the tag up in time. But it seemed like it dated a "cn" tag when I was working.

Does the bot check for "inuse" in sections or only at the article top?

And does it open the whole article or just the place where it works? (IOW does it cause a conflict?)

TCO (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

AnomieBOT actually queries the list of categories on the article looking for Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit, which is independent of which part of the page it might be editing and of where the tag might be in the article. Also, the tag dater also edits the entire page since it can't know ahead of time where in the article the tags needing dating might be; this doesn't matter for edit conflict resolution, though, because the way MediaWiki handles a section edit is that it first merges the edited section back into the whole (original) article and then tries to save it just as if the whole page had been edited.

Maybe I'm just missing it, but I don't see an {{in use}} template on any of AnomieBOT's last three revisions of that article: [1][2][3] Anomie⚔ 23:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

My bad. It was late and I probably did not have the template up. I put it up later and I guess that kept the bot away. No worries and I did not mean to be testy. You know how it is with the EC's. I will just be vigilant about using the tag.TCO (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Links on Wikipedia:BAG/Status

@Anomie: Hello, please use the rights log instead of the makebot log in the links labelled "F". Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Anomie⚔ 03:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  05:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Redundant Old AfD tags

AnomieBOT just added an {{old AfD multi}} tag to Talk:Tiny Tiny RSS, even though that page already had an {{old AfD}} tag pointing to the same AfD [4]. Does AnomieBOT not check for the presence of this template before adding one of its own? If not, then perhaps it should. I'm not the only human editor who takes care to add the {{old AfD}} tag to the talk page of newly recreated articles. Psychonaut (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 Added It checks for {{Old AfD multi}} and {{ArticleHistory}}. This is the first I've heard of {{Old AfD}}. Anomie⚔ 21:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

false positive

[5] —Ruud 19:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not. {{Infobox OS version}} takes a |date= in order to date the {{citation needed}} it automatically inserts if various *_url parameters are missing. Anomie⚔ 22:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Weird... would it be possible to give that field a slightly more descriptive name in that case? —Ruud 08:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Such a thing would be possible, yes. Anomie⚔ 11:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You may want to update the template's documentation with this information. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated to Ruud Koot's issue, but it also involves the citation needed template. Does AnomieBOT have an issue with the day or is this normal behavior? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The date parameter is supposed to contain the month and year, no day. This corresponds to the fact that Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 8th, 2013 doesn't exist, but Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2013 does. Also, were the day to be used, it would most likely have to be either "July 8, 2013" or "8 July 2013", no ordinal suffix. Anomie⚔ 11:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I understand now.  :) I thought it was weird for it to remove a detail like that. Thanks for your help. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Beersheba (1917)

Revision 04:33, 13 July 2013 (Fixing reference errors)

• ref group-"Note" was fixed by replacing this with ref which was not helpful. The problem was the dash should have been an equals sign. All fixed now, but I thought you might be interested. :) --Rskp (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with inserting a template at the top of medicine-related talk pages

At WikiProject Medicine, we discussed and approved an idea to add the {{WPMED/Evidence}} template to the top of many in-scope article talk pages. The list of pages would be all of those that transclude any of these templates (as discussed here):

• {{Infobox disease}}
• {{Infobox symptom}}
• {{Interventions infobox}}
• {{Diagnostic infobox}}
• {{Drugbox}}
• {{Drugclassbox}}

Could you help with this? If not, could you point me in the right direction? I am a Perl programmer, so could probably do it myself, but in a first crack at it, had some trouble installing/using Mediawiki::bot with a test wiki.

Thanks! Klortho (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I can have a look, should be simple enough since it's very like stuff I've done before. But I'm a little concerned that people will complain about the template being added to 12000 article talk pages without a community-wide discussion. I've seen people complain about that sort of thing before when a WikiProject decides something without advertising the discussion to people who don't watch the project's talk page. Anomie⚔ 23:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've asked others at WP:MED to comment on your concerns. My own, personal view is, that these are, generally, articles in a fairly specialized field (health), that have a lot of impact; therefore, it's more important that the information be of high quality and reliable. Many (most?) editors have difficulty identifying reliable sources for these kinds of topics, and this template is designed merely to point them in the right direction. As it's on the talk pages, it's fairly unobtrusive. Just my two cents. Klortho (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Some discussion with expression of support can be found here at WT:MED [6]. I will look at trying to get wider community support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Note WP:SILENCE is fine with me, as long as people had the opportunity to know about it without watching WPMed's talk page. Dropping a note at WP:VPR would be fine, as far as I'm concerned. Anomie⚔ 20:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes the conversation that Doc James points to was indeed a public notice at the appropriate project-wide discussion board, received comments for nine days and the idea received pretty clear support. Wouldn't that be enough to meet the concern that a community-wide discussion should be held? Zad68 14:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The concern is whether anyone who doesn't watch WikiProject Medicine's talk page would have been aware of the discussion. Anomie⚔ 20:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware, and this bot installation is A Very Bad Idea ... it should be stopped. Discussion of issues at WT:MED-- it is installing a template which specifically recommends sources that do not conform with MEDRS (primary sources just because free full text is available). In some cases, it is linking to nothing. This is not an appropriate task for automation-- editorial discretion is required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I insisted on a post at WP:VPR, which was done. Anomie⚔ 15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Klortho, Jmh649, and Zad68: I have the code ready to do this. Basically, it inserts the template above any WikiProject banners (or the WikiProjectBannerShell), if any, or otherwise it tries to find a "good" place to insert it among the other talkpage header templates. Did you post a notice at WP:VPR or anywhere yet? Anomie⚔ 22:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful give us a week to get broader input. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Can I see the code you developed to do this? What you're describing sounds like a bigger job than I thought it was. Zad68 17:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It will be at User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/TalkTagger.pm at some point. I'll see about getting it there somewhat soon, although if nothing else it'll be there once I get ready to actually run it. Anomie⚔ 21:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Anomie, it looks like there is general support for this idea on VPR, here. Klortho (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching that, but thanks for reminding me. BRFA filed Anomie⚔ 00:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, on the BRFA, it says, "approved for trial" and "trial completed". I just checked a few pages that transclude Infobox_disease, than they have the template. Did it ever run to completion? Is there anywhere someone could go to see a report? Thanks! Klortho (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

50 pages were tagged, now we're waiting for approval to do the rest. Anomie⚔ 22:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see WT:MED and please stop this bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion at WT:MED doesn't seem to have anyone supporting that except you; the rest seem to prefer fixing the template instead. Anomie⚔ 15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Overtagging

The bot appears to be tagging articles on veterinary topics with a MEDRS template. Not sure that's within the scope of MEDRS. Montanabw^(talk) 15:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The bot was already finished yesterday morning (UTC). It would probably be best to bring this up at WT:MED or WT:MEDRS. Anomie⚔ 15:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Archiving old AfDs

Noticing that closed AfDs for the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Paganism weren't being archived, I have created an archive page. Is there anything else I need to do for the bot to start archiving the closed AfDs? (I don't see any mysterious summoning code on other such pages but may well be missing it.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact for the bot to find it. Anomie⚔ 21:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, did that, thanks :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Great edit!

Great edit! Thanks, --Technopat (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

AnomieBOT says you're welcome. Anomie⚔ 10:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:Cushman

Thanks!!!! Mugginsx (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

BAGBot: WP:BRFA cannot be processed - Fixed

The BRFA list cannot be processed. Most likely, someone has screwed around with the section headers. Either fix it back to the old layout, or update me to handle the new version. Thanks. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 19:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I rollbacked an anon's edit, hoefully that's sufficient. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Bah

It's quite annoying to see that all that's been done is a very minor edit. Alright, maybe a date= parameter is useful. So to stop bots from messing up the (current) tag, I started adding it.

Yet, that is not enough. I still get bitten. Like, july 2013 -> July 2013. Trivial crap like that is why I stopped even tagging articles. I think I'll stop again. Congratulations to you, and your valuable service to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.211.113.82 (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that "july 2013" is incorrect and doesn't work: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from july 2013 doesn't and shouldn't exist, while Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2013 does. If you enter "July 2013" with correct capitalization, it works fine and the bot won't edit it. Anomie⚔ 11:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

What's up with this bot? Tagging Hogansville, Georgia lead paragraph and notable residents section. I despise templates, they make articles look ugly. My coworkers ask what this section in the box means and what this means here. I tell them just ignore these templates and read the rest of the article. This also must be why teachers are telling students not to use wiki articles as sources in papers because you never know what templates might be on articles. Disgusting drive-by tagging, disable this bot as soon as you can. Peace out! --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

AnomieBOT didn't do a drive-by tag - it dated two tags that somebody else added. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Better fix for this?

Is there any way the bot can fix things like this in a better way than it did? This change actually made the page worse, because the reference still showed an error after, and now it's not obvious a URL was ever added. Jackmcbarn (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

IFDCloser: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 9 is broken - Fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 9 contains the "is_closed" regex but not at the beginning of the section. Probably someone put the {{ffd top}} before a section header instead of after. Anyway, I can't do anything to that page until someone fixes it. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 16:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not quite the right tag

Hi Anomie. Your bot has just formatted my tag at Persian carpet, thanks. I see now that the tag is not quite what I wanted - my intention was to call attention to the fact that the information is outdated/ old. I can't find the correct tag template for that. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Rui Gabriel Correia: - You may want to try {{update after}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Or {{Update inline}} --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

DRV

Howdy bot people! The bot is doing something strange at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 August 29 - insisting on a duplicate daily header. I think it relates to the fact that someone tried to add one manually earlier today (in the same way that one manually adds a record to AFD). I tried to correct the error but was reverted by the bot. I think I've fixed it by removing the manually entered one, but I'm not certain. If you could have a look, that would be great. Obviously no need to stop it or whatever, just a minor glitch. Cheers! Stalwart111 07:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you got it. I've fixed the bug in the bot that was making it do that in this situation. Anomie⚔ 10:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests to modules

Can edit requests to modules be colored green instead of white, like templates currently are? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea.  Done Anomie⚔ 22:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove CfD templates

Hello, Category:Wikipedians by profession was nominated as CfD, and the results was keep. Can we loop through it's child categories and remove the CfD template? The discussion can be found here. Please note that the mentioned list in the discussion does not include all categories that were nominated for deletion, e.g. the template on Category:Wikipedian_guitarists-2 links to the same discussion but is not included in the list. I'm going to assume all of the Category:Wikipedians by profession child categories are safe to keep? Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

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

The page Template:Outdated section is transcluded in other pages and appears to consist of nothing but an invocation of a template that should be dated but isn't. Please fix it (most likely by adding |date={{{date|}}} to the dated template invocation), or fix me. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 13:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Should be fixed. Theopolisme (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome templates

Hi! I was wondering about the possibility of the welcome templates being added to your list of things to automatically subst. They're on the list of things that should be substituted. Also, could you use {{ping}} to notify me that you've replied? Thanks! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Cymru.lass: Feel free, all you need to do is add each template to Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, and for each one that currently has more than 100 unsubsted transclusions have an admin list it on User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. One easy way to add the category is to add |auto=yes to the invocation of {{Subst only}} that's probably already on the templates' documentation pages. Anomie⚔ 18:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do! Thankfully, none of them have >100 transclusions. In fact, most of them currently have zero transclusions because I got bored last night and substed them all (this was before I discovered AnomieBOT). Thanks! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving references out of templates

The bot recently moved a reference out of a template.[7] However, doing so added a citation where it did not belong. While it would make sense to note the error, the bot should not be attaching references to random locations within articles. This citation that that bot moved was put there to cite the range of the organism within the fossil record, a very specific citation that does not belong just anywhere in the article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) The bot didn't "add a citation where it did not belong" - the citation was already there, in the form of <ref name="Waren1996" /> --Redrose64 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the citation was not where the bot moved it to, it was where the bot moved it from. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

Please see WP:NAMEDREFS also WP:3RR. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Geeze, this editor has created incomprehensible, useless articles, and having this bot editing, causing me an edit conflict, while I am trying to read, edit, and correct this set of junk articles is very annoying. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

This bot is not putting the reference in the right place. Although it may need fixed, it should not be fixed in a way that the bot creates a reference that does not belong. There are many useful bots doing useful tasks on Wikipedia; this is not a useful task, to assign a reference to a random sentence in an article, simply because it is in the wrong place. A broken reference is better than one that is wrong.

Please stop this bot from reverting my edit. Thank you. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

Bot/human edit war: bot wins, the articles are all his. Maybe the bot can now continue editing the rest of the junk out of this editor's articles, since it is interfering with my trying to make sense of them. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

Passengers on the Anne and the Little James

Please do not work on my new page until I am finished - I have just lost about 40 minutes of work. I know you do great work, I just could not find the "work in progress" template. Mybad. Thankyou Mugginsx (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The template is {{in use}}. Anomie⚔ 03:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Have saved it in my Sandbox. Thanks again! Do not know what we would do without you Bots!!! Mugginsx (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not working on WP:DRV?

The bot failed to create today's page, and failed to add both today's and yesterday's pages to the list. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Restarted the bot. It looks like a database error took it down. Anomie⚔ 11:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests to pages that don't exist

If an edit semi-protected template is placed on a talk page when the corresponding content page doesn't exist, can it be colored yellow instead of red? Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Alex Rodriguez - fixed

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Alex Rodriguez, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about nowpublic.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:

• Alex Rodriguez revision 574305805:
  • Rescued "Orza" from rev 574305626
    Removed in revision 574305805 by Muboshgu (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "remove blacklisted links" (removed 494/111615 bytes, 0%)

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⚡ 11:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, it had more than one usage in the article. I'm on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Page names in edit requests are ignored

When an edit protected tag is placed on a page, and it contains the parameter that sets the page being requested to be edited (example here, the request is on Template talk:Ln but applies to Template:La, per the first parameter), the bot lists it as being an edit to the wrong page (here). Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is the same as the q that I asked a few weeks ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still trying to decide if there is a good way to do it that wouldn't require loading the content of every talk page containing the template, or if that's an acceptable load. Anomie⚔ 11:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe change {{edit protected}} to put pages in an additional category when a parameter is passed to it, and then only load the pages in that category. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done What I wound up doing is having the template insert a "urn"-protocol link, so the bot just has to fetch the list of those. Anomie⚔ 00:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

DRVClerk: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 September 16 is broken - Fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 September 16 seems to contain a level-4 header. Probably someone screwed up {{DRV top}}, and I'm thinking an entire discussion is part of {{{1}}} or {{{2}}}. Anyway, I can't remove the headers from that page until someone fixes it. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 21:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed. This message is really unclear, worse than most of this kind of messages. It seems to do this itself usually ([8]); I don't get why it couldn't this time. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Sorry, I missed seeing this until now. It got confused because in this edit someone screwed up the wikitext inserted by {{subst:DRV bottom}}, so when AnomieBOT was trying to find the end of the first section it ran it together with the next one. And then it realized something was screwed up, so it asked for help. Anomie⚔ 21:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the whitespace. Why'd the bot say "an entire discussion is part of {{{1}}} or {{{2}}}", instead of putting something sensible in parameters 1 or 2, though? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

{{DRV top}} takes two parameters, it was referring to those. For example, instead of the discussion result being "Discussion endorsed" the bot might be thinking it was "Discussion endorsed – [[User:Example]] ([[User talk:Example|talk]]) 21:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC) <!-- * --> and more wikitext and the whole of the actual discussion all the way until the middle of {{DRV top}}'s output for the next section".

BTW, I changed the message to "Probably someone screwed up the wikitext created by {{subst:DRV top}} (which could make me think an entire discussion is part of {{{1}}} or {{{2}}}) or {{subst:DRV bottom}} (so I'm not finding the end of the discussion and running it together with the next one)" now, which hopefully is slightly more clear. Anomie⚔ 21:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Bot used incorrect syntax for improve tag.

Please look at the edit it made to Fraggle Rock on October 10, 2013.

24.18.35.153 (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with it (and it was 4 October, not 10 October, which is this coming Thursday). The problem was that in this edit on 3 October, |reason= was not filled in by 91.63.243.112 (talk). The bot cannot know the reason, but it can determine the date. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 October 5#File:Subhasree Ganguly.jpg

Something is wrong with the bot: it closed the same discussion four times. --Stefan2 (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, this also happened at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 October 1. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The bot appears to add additional {{subst:ffd top}}, {{subst:puf top}} and similar once per hour. I have stopped the PUF task by inserting text at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/PUICloser, and I see that User:Magog the Ogre has stopped the FFD task by inserting text at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/IFDCloser. I hope that this can be fixed soon. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is likely my fault. I had to change those templates slightly to fix them in mobile view, and AnomieBOT apparently looks for the exact contents of them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

yes, same thing at tfd. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's your fault ;) AnomieBOT looks for <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" to detect a closed discussion. I'll have that adjusted in a few minutes. Anomie⚔ 23:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. I also added a check to try to prevent this sort of thing from happening again: it will post here and refuse to continue if the appropriate "top" template doesn't contain the wikitext it looks for to detect closed discussions. Anomie⚔ 23:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

2008 in Irish music

Why did you do this? >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_in_Irish_music&diff=451894118&oldid=451660240 It caused a lot of errors. --Frze ^{> talk} 12:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That happened two years ago. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, the error messages were there already. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem was that the names properties were entered incorrectly, as name=="foo" with an extra equals sign. This meant MediaWiki would not recognize the name, and AnomieBOT eventually removed the entirely bogus text. Anomie⚔ 23:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your editing

Hi, AnomieBOT. I really thank you for your help.
Here is a tea for you. Have some rest. And next time, please help me to update my article. :) Have a nice day. IloveU4ever (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Questions about NewArticleAFDTagger

Hi Anomie. Thank you very much for writing AnomieBOT, and especially the NewArticleAFDTagger. I know you're busy, so I don't expect that you'll write such a task. Instead, it would be good if you could let Bot Requests readers know whether or not you would accept a patch which adds this functionality to AnomieBOT, and to also let readers know whether or not you or any other bot did NewArticleAFDTagging of all pre-existing articles before you launched your bot. Thank you! —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Will reply there. Anomie⚔ 11:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Change of Username (Usurpations request) Request Still In Progress : Mb-m → Mmitra

Hi, I have requested for Change of Username using Usurpations from Mb-m → Mmitra. It's almost 8 days from the date of request but still it shows In progress, i would like to know how much time does it takes to complete the request and how long would it take to complete. Please reply as soon as possible. Thank You !

Link: Mb-m → Mmitra

--Mb-m (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It takes until a bureaucrat reviews the request and decides to approve or deny it. AnomieBOT is just a bot that helps out by checking various factors so the 'crats don't have to look things up themselves. Anomie⚔ 11:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

PERTableUpdater ended?

Hi, User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable has become out-of-date, and http://tools.wmflabs.org/anomiebot/ marks PERTableUpdater as "ended"? Does this mean it won't run any more? That would be a shame, because by watchlisting the SPERTable one can get very quick notice of new edit requests. (I know about Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests, but one can't watchlist that, and the category actually transcludes the SPERTable.) Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I have no idea why that is "ended". I'll take a look at the code and restart it shortly. Anomie⚔ 12:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, figured it out and fixed it. Anomie⚔ 12:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Stfg (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

New protection level

Hi, re this edit - there is now a fourth protection level, intermediate between semi-prot and full-prot: it is called template editor, and such templates may be identified by testing {{PROTECTIONLEVEL}} for "templateeditor". As an example, {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit|Template:Infobox bilateral relations}} → templateeditor --Redrose64 (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to find time to update the code. Anomie⚔ 11:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

William Bowes

SIR WILLIAM BOWES article Please remove the need for citation tag - the references are all in order. Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.10.139 (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is a bot. You should talk to the user who added the tag, which appears to have been TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) in this edit. Anomie⚔ 17:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong fix?

Please take a look: [9] [10] [11] Thanks --Frze ^{> talk} 04:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Please ping me

@Frze: You got it in this edit: the curly quote U+201d (”) is not a valid closing quote, changing it to a normal quote U+0022 (") fixes it. I don't know why people do such crazy things with curly quotes. Anomie⚔ 10:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I had to ZOOM 200% to see the difference... Thanks for your sending me your message OrphanReferenceFixer. I am looking forward to our new REFBot. Would be glad if you support it and add a comment there. Referencingly --Frze ^{> talk} 11:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A reference problem I

Hi Anomie!

Here you removed <ref></ref>-Tags. Adding this is mostly done by vandals or IP-vandals. Nobody will notice the other changes there. What's to do? Thanks -- Frze ^{> talk} 05:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Please ping me

@Frze: Please read the box at the top of the bot's talk page. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 10:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Irritating citation needed notices etc

This bot seems to be sticking 'citation needed' and 'ambiguity' notices everywhere - I'm getting a bit sick of reversing them. It adds citation needed notices to sentences or paragraphs that have < ref >< /ref > citations at their ends! This sort of flagging is not suitable for a bot to undertake. Urselius (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You should have read this page's edit notice, it would have saved you some trouble. For your convenience, I'll reproduce the relevant bit here for you:

• If you are here because you think AnomieBOT added {{citation needed}} or another maintenance tag to an article, please check again. AnomieBOT only added the current date to a maintenance tag added by another editor in a previous edit.

HTH. Anomie⚔ 21:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor

Not quite the right tag, you had contributed to Shraddha Kapoor, stop adding dubious tag, justify/clarify your tag on your the talk page. Seriously, i don't know in which way the page does not seem in neutral way.

Smauritius (' . ') 09:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You are confused. AnomieBOT is a computer program that, among other things, adds |date= to maintenance tags added by other (human) users. If you carefully examine whichever edit you are complaining about, you will note that the tag was already present and the bot only added |date=October 2013 to it. You should look further back in the history to find the human editor who did add the tag. Anomie⚔ 00:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Misguided complaint about something AnomieBOT didn't do

Dear Anomie BOT, you have removed the reference to the book of Sailen Debnath while keeping the entire quotation and version from his book. this part "Yama is assisted by Chitragupta who is assigned with the task of keeping complete records of actions of human beings on the earth, and upon their death deciding to have them reincarnated as a superior or inferior organism, depending on their actions on the earth (Karma). "In Hinduism, Yama often is considered as ‘Kala’ or time, for Yama comes in a particular time and that time is naturally selected; nobody can stop his coming and change the timing. That after birth a living body gradually approaches towards death through decay or disease or because of accident is just a matter of time or duration of time at the end of which there comes Death. The coming of Death may be delayed by treatment of the patient or the sick person or by the pursuit of a better way of life, but the inevitability of death can never be stopped by any means. That is why Yama is called “Kala’ or time, because the coming of Death is just a matter of time in accordance with the law and system of nature."Italic text[citation needed] was directly taken from 'Sailen Debnath, The Meanings of Hindu Gods, Goddesses and Myths, ISBN 9788129114815, Rupa & Co., New Delhi'. Astonishingly you have removed the reference while again you want 'citation'. Please either you restore the reference to the book of sailen Debnath by reverting to the previous position or remove the quotation as earlier the better for the act of removing the reference while keeping the quotation amounts to copy-right violation that is looked after by the Rupa & Co, New Delhi. The previous edition was made by me for the up-gradation of the Wikipedia talk-page on Yama. As you administrators do not like reference to the books of Sailen Debnath on the ground of his being only a 'minor academic', you are at liberty to do that; but in that case, you must remove the portion or the quotation taken verbatim from his book. You are not supposed to be involved in copy-right violation.--Parnashree (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

AnomieBOT did no such thing. Apparently you are complaining about this edit to Yama (Hinduism). If you actually look at that diff, you'll see that AnomieBOT did not remove any reference. The reference was removed by RegentsPark (talk · contribs) in the previous edit. Next time please be more careful before throwing such accusations around. Anomie⚔ 16:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

BAGBot: WP:BRFA cannot be processed - Fixed

The BRFA list cannot be processed. Most likely, someone has screwed around with the section headers. Either fix it back to the old layout, or update me to handle the new version. 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⚡ 16:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Addshore rolled back the edit in question. I also filed a request for semi-protection at RFPP. Theopolisme (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Silly vandalism. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 08:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

TagDater missing some {{copyedit}} articles?

There are a larger than usual number of undated articles in Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit. I believe that AnomieBOT usually tags the {{copyedit}} tags with dates pretty quickly. I did a random check on a few of the articles, and they all had the copyedit tag added on October 25.

Am I being impatient? Could something bot-related be stuck and in need of a restart?

Disclaimer: I know very little about how AnomieBOT works, but I have benefited greatly from its drive-by dating of my undated tags. I love being allowed to be lazy! Thanks for that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Unfortunately there are no articles in the category now, so I can't look at them to see what the problem might have been. If you happen to still have a list of them, let me know. Anomie⚔ 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that History of WWE and Hervé Biausser were two of the 20 or so articles that had no date on the copyedit tag, FWIW. It looks like one of our copy editors put dates on the copyedit tags manually, 5-6 days after they were initially tagged. I don't know if you'll be able to figure out anything from that information. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

d'oh. It had nothing to do with the articles at all, the problem is this edit to the category itself. That took it out of Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month, so the bot doesn't check it anymore. I fixed it by applying {{Parent monthly clean up category}}. Anomie⚔ 20:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yikes! I didn't have that page on my Watchlist. I should have. I am one of the coordinators for the Guild of Copy Editors, so I feel some responsibility to make this page look and work right.

I have undone both your edit and the October 12 edit, restoring the page to its previous state. Your edit made the formatting of the page look undesirable, and I couldn't figure out how to keep your stuff and still make the page look good. If there is some advantage to using the template you added versus the ones we had there before, please let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't see this first. The {{Parent monthly clean up category}} takes the place of those other three templates, and of manually putting the category on the page. Anomie⚔ 23:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

AltLinkTemplateSubster: Template:Cfb link was modified! - Fixed

The template Template:Cfb link was modified from the last known good version (diff). Please check that my replacement function for that template is still correct, and then update the good revision id to the current revision. 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⚡ 05:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection level was changed, no text changes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Not one you can fix, it needs a code change to the bot. Changing the section header to "fixed" would just have the bot re-post this section on its next run of the task. Anomie⚔ 12:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Strange entry

Hi. Just wondering how, in this update, the request at Talk:Big Ben was assigned to article 1. --Stfg (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the editor who made the request, fed a "1" as a parameter to the template ([12]) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Stfg (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

BAG/Status to highlight last edit

Hi AnomieBOT! The BAG/Status page has last editor (+datetime) and last BAG editor (+datetime). Could you ask your programmer to change you so that the newer (or older, whatever) of the two columns gets highlighted in a different colour (such as light gray) so I can tell when the back and forth requires me to have another go? Sometimes I miss stuff on my watchlist. Thanks! Josh Parris 09:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You can already set something in your common.css targeting the .MostRecentIsBAG class, which is set on the cells of the "Last edit" column when the last edit is also the last BAG edit. Anomie⚔ 11:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I say, good shot. Josh Parris 22:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

BAG/Status lists BAGger as editor? And not as last editor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BAG/Status&oldid=580571685 Shows Josh Parris as the last BAG editor, and Hellknowz as the last editor; WP:BAG shows Hellknowz as a BAGger and Hellknowz has been listed as Last BAG editor elsewhere in that list. Hellknowz edited after Josh Parris, so, um, huh? Bug? Or correct behaviour that I don't understand? Josh Parris 09:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The bot ignores minor edits for the "Last BAG edit" column. Anomie⚔ 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, danke. Josh Parris 22:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

BETEGY

Hi, could you please review and pass the article you tagged(Dating maintenance tags: {{Notability}} {{Advert}}). The content has be edited since then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larochie (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 November 2013‎

(talk page stalker) Please observe the notice displayed when you edit this page, the box headed "AnomieBOT is not a human editor". Anyway, I expect that you are thinking of this edit: all that AnomieBOT did was add dates to the {{notability}} and {{advert}} that were already present. It does not "review" or "pass" articles, nor does it add the tags in question. I suggest that you contact Piotrus (talk · contribs), who did add those tags. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

How to archive non-AfD

There's a MfD at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football which is not being archived by this bot (which is only doing AfDs). I would just delete it myself but don't want to deny its passage to an archive somewhere. If anyone reading this can delete/archive it, please go ahead. It has been sitting there since January 2013. Thanks, C679 22:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've adjusted the bot to handle MfDs in addition to AfDs. Anomie⚔ 23:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I hit the emergency shutoff

I've hit the emergency shutoff for the TemplateUnsubstifier task. Something seems to have gone wrong, see Template:Self for an erroneous edit. I'm not sure to how many edits the problem extends. —RP88 ^(talk) 18:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Related to this discussion above/below, I've created a discussion at WP:AN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Mass_revert_of_AnomieBOT_II_needed.3F_Urgent_attention_needed_.28templates.21.29). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@RP88: Thanks for letting me know, and for hitting the emergency stop. I'm working on a fix now, and I'll scan all the bot's edits for any other templates that seem to have the same problem. Anomie⚔ 19:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Maybe you'll support me if I make a request for the new template editor user right :-) ? In any case, I appreciate that you responded to the issue so quickly. —RP88 ^(talk) 19:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: There were 35 other templates with the problem, all variations on Template:Fb kit footer. I've reverted all the ones someone else didn't beat me to reverting. I also have a fix for the bot so it can detect and refuse to try to edit templates with this problem in the future, so once I have that uploaded I'll restart the bot. Anomie⚔ 19:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. The reason for the failure with the {{Fb kit footer}} family of templates seems to have been due to a slightly different problem, but I'm glad to see you've addressed it. I like your solution of having the bot run, on the fly, a template substitution test and skipping the TemplateUnsubstifier task for that template if the bot doesn't detect a sensible result. —RP88 ^(talk) 20:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem seems the same to me in both cases, "|"s outside of transclusions and wikilinks make it so we can't just dump the wikitext of the template into a parameter to #invoke:Module. {{Self}} has a full wikitable while {{Fb kit footer}} etc have partial wikitable syntax, but it's the pipes that are the issue. Anomie⚔ 21:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

What happened here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Disambiguation_needed&diff=582080428&oldid=581202663

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what was supposed to happen? If there's something wrong with that edit, please provide details. Anomie⚔ 19:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that the bot was approved for that task, I was under the impression that it was meant to edit in mainspace. I've reverted a few of the edits (Template:Episode, Template:When, Template:Lead missing, Template:Expand Irish, Template:BLP IMDb-only refimprove, Template:Disambiguation needed), based on my impression and the above report (which I thought was the same issue) but if those were right, just re-revert me. Or I can do that myself if you want. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, please do revert yourself if the edits are correct. Anomie⚔ 19:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Bug?

I've noticed that the bot made a strange edit here, destroying a template that it had placed itself. This cannot be correct. I've reverted the bot edit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: The bot has done it again. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem was that {{subst:plural}} wasn't substing completely correctly. I've fixed that, so it should be good now. Anomie⚔ 02:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, someone's reacted to my edit, great, let's see what they've changed...

no, it's just AnomieBOT. Again, adding non-required arguments to tags. Gronky (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm as polite as possible, but your bot just isn't. Can't you at least add something so that wikipedians can tell it not to fiddle with tags they add? It's really annoying. Gronky (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I presume you're talking about the maintenance tag dating task, although you didn't specify. The community, by desiring that maintenance categories be organized by date, disagrees with your complaint that the date parameter is "non-required". Nor do I see how AnomieBOT is impolite, if "politeness" even has meaning for a non-sentient computer program.

If you don't want AnomieBOT to "fiddle with" tags you add, then add the date parameter yourself. Recently all of the maintenance tags listed at WP:AWB/DT (which is the primary list of tags that AnomieBOT will add dates to) have been upgraded using Module:Unsubst so that this is as simple as using e.g. {{subst:citation needed}} (note, though, that this may not work inside <ref> or other HTML-like extension tags). Anomie⚔ 13:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I love being able to add {{cn}} and other tags to an article, having full confidence that AnomieBOT will insert the date for me while I am off doing tasks that only humans can do. Thanks, AnomieBOT! – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about adding dates to my fact tags. Please add an opt-out. Gronky (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup tags need to be dated so they can be categorized in the appropriate cleanup categories. If you don't want to see AnomieBOT's changes, I suggest hiding bots from your watchlist, or alternatively, follow WP:HIDEBOT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with what Anomie and Headbomb said (less so with Jonesey95 because I always date mine, but I understand the point). Also, if somebody sees that a particular sentence has a {{cn}} with a date from some years ago like {{cn|date=May 2009}} it's unlikely that a source will be forthcoming any time soon, so it's probably better just to remove the sentence. However, something marked {{cn|date=November 2013}} may only have been added today, so WP:BLP notwithstanding it's a candidate to be left alone if you cannot source it yourself. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@Gronky: - Please note that the documentation at Template:Citation needed#Template data defines the |date= parameter as required. GoingBatty (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Usen't to be required. I'll try to think of other suggestions then to fix this problem.

The problem is that when I view my contributions, there's usually a (top) informing me that a page hasn't been changed, so there's nothing to review. I find this feature very useful, better than my watchlist, but it gets broken whenever I use a fact tag because AnomieBOT makes a trivial edit, which triggers the notification ("top" disappears), so I waste my time checking an unchanged article, and then I've nothing on my contributions list notifying me when that an article really does get changed.

Can anyone suggest ways to fix this, either by improving AnomieBOT, making a slight change to the MediaWiki software, or changing the rules/guidelines of the wiki? Thanks. Gronky (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I already gave you the best suggestion I have: add the dates yourself when placing the tags and AnomieBOT won't need to edit the page. Other suggestions would be to use a feature that is intended for watching pages instead of the "(top)" indicator on contribs, or go to WP:VPR and try to convince people to change how maintenance categories work. Anomie⚔ 16:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Gronky: The |date= parameter was added to {{citation needed}} with this edit. Its presence initially put the page into Category:Articles with unsourced statements since November 2013 etc., but this was altered to Category:Articles with unsourced statements from November 2013 etc. on 23 May 2009. Since the parameter was implemented on 5 February 2007, its absence has been tracked by putting the page into Category:Articles with unsourced statements, so that bots like SmackBot (talk · contribs) could go through that category and so add the missing |date=. AnomieBOT is doing nothing new in that regard - in fact it is doing less since it leaves template redirects like {{cn}} and {{fact}} alone when adding a missing |date=, whereas SmackBot would always alter these to {{citation needed}} whether adding the date or not. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I know you mean well by your comment but newness or differences compared to SmackBot aren't the issue. It's about the (top) notification being really useful on the page of my contributions, and AnomieBOT's current behaviour breaking that useful MediaWiki feature. So I'm looking for ideas for how to stop this feature getting broken by AnomieBOT. Maybe that involves changing AnomieBOT, or Wikipedia policy, or MediaWiki. Gronky (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Like others have said: always add a |date= parameter when you use any maintenance template (not just {{citation needed}}. I haven't yet encountered a situation where adding the date has caused a problem, so I don't bother checking if the template (a) requires |date= (b) allows it without requiring it (c) ignores it. I remember to do it 95% of the time (or better) - I just add it it out of habit and nobody complains, least of all AnomieBOT. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

But I don't want editing Wikipedia to be harder. I'm a programmer, syntax doesn't scare me, but I also know that users don't accept vertical bars and equals signs. Curly braces is already enough to ask. Bots should make Wikipedia less annoying. "Grow to like it!" isn't how to make a user-friendly system. Editing Wikipedia is a hobby and I want it to be fun. Gronky (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Gronky, all through this I've been getting the distinct impression that you're treating the bot-dating of {{citation needed}} as some new feature that has been imposed without consensus. But I have demonstrated - and can present more evidence if you like - that it is not new, but has been in place for well over six years. You've been editing since July 2004, and so this feature came in when you had been editing for less than three years, so why is it suddenly a problem now? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A date, *almost* correct

Hi. Just to point that the bot *almost* got a date correction right (that is, it got it wrong, but it was no big deal, and even mildly amusing). Just dropping a note, in case it looks interesting to you. Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The bot actually had no idea that "data" was a misnamed date parameter, so it just added "date". Anomie⚔ 21:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Protection level not displayed

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T59909

Why is the protection level not always displayed in the edit protected tables (e.g. here)? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a bug in MediaWiki making it so that the + in Template:Location map+ cannot be distinguished from a space. Anomie⚔ 03:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Women artists

Hi. The newly formed WikiProject Women artists is looking to add its project banner to the talk pages of articles within defined categories. Is this something that AnomieBOT can still do? Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 11:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, AnomieBOT can still do that. Note the details described in the "Before requesting a WikiProjectTagger run, please read the following" box at the top of this talk page. The short version is that you'll have to make a list of the specific categories to be processed, and have a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women artists where multiple people check that the listed categories contain only articles that are in the project's scope. Anomie⚔ 13:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Anomie. We've already been discussing this on the project's talk page, where I listed the categories and linked to the details in the WikiProjectTagger run. I didn't get much of a response on the project's talk page, but Sarah (the project's founder) signed off on the list here. I can ask more editors to check the categories and weigh in if you'd like, but we've had a related scope discussion and I'm anticipating very few false positives with this list. Here are the categories:

The project isn't using importance assessments, but it would be helpful to have the article class auto-assigned. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 14:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose that's good enough. The bot will start in a few minutes. Anomie⚔ 01:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Gobonobo: The bot is now done. 2691 pages were tagged. Anomie⚔ 15:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much Anomie! Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 15:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The edits added BLP=yes on talk pages with living=no [[13]] --Racklever (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Code is fixed for next time. Anomie⚔ 12:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I've now gone through the bot's edits for this task; it looks like you already fixed all except one. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 13:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

PUICloser: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 3 is broken - Fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 3 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⚡ 18:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Since this particular issue happens so often, would it be possible to set AnomieBOT that if it finds the beginning closed template at the end of a section, to act like it found it at the start of the next section automatically? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It does that for FFD (it even moves the section header). But for PUF, it can't really tell the difference between "someone stuck {{subst:puf top}} before the section header" and "someone randomly shoved {{subst:puf top}} in the middle of a discussion" and "someone forgot {{subst:puf bottom}} at the end of the previous section" because the close reason isn't enclosed by the template. I probably should fix {{puf top}} to do that at some point. Anomie⚔ 19:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, it turns out I misremembered and the thing that was really stopping {{puf top}} from being auto-fixed was fixed back in 2009. But I made it a bit more robust anyway.  Done [14] Anomie⚔ 03:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

{{cih link}}

Could you {{cih link}} to the AltLinkTemplateSubster task in the same way that you have {{cfb link}}, {{cbb link}}, and {{cbsb link}}? Thanks. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 03:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

May as well. Anomie⚔ 02:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month

So basically Collaboration of the Month has been marked inactive and historical and with a brief discussion at the VG WikiProject, we decided to keep it like that. So could you have the bot stop updating the collab template? GamerPro64 15:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Just remove the bot's template and it won't update it anymore. Anomie⚔ 16:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio & wrong forum

Thank you for letting me know that the copyvios I found should be discussed in the Commons forum. I was trying to Be Bold, but I am not at all familiar with the templates in the commons. I gave it a shot, and did it incorrectly. I honestly appreciate your advice.Josh3580_talk/hist 01:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar

It's amazing to me how a bot can do this well... Hello AnomieBOT, SpiralingSky has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. SpiralingSky (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Bot going bonkers?

Resolved

Anomie, is AnomieBOT going bonkers? I ask because this edit looks really funky to me especially since the template in question has not changed protection levels at all. Technical 13 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I just made a change to Module:Protected edit request and a corresponding change to the bot, but I forgot that every page with an active edit request would need purging too. Doing that now, then the next bot update should fix things. Anomie⚔ 02:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

All better now. :) Technical 13 (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

need help

hey i saw you have edited "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahira_College_Matale" this page recently.. please add a logo to this page.. i cant do it cz my profile is not approved yet.. use this image or any other good image you can find.. thanks :)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zcm_logo_(2).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aishak 97 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI - this has already been done. The same user posted the same request on my bot's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Unnamed date parameters

I inserted the following template {{update| |December 2006}} to the article, which gives the message:

This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.
Last update: December 2006

AnomieBot replaced the second unnamed date parameter with an explicit |date= parameter, to read {{update| |date=December 2006}}, which changes the message to

Parts of this article (those related to December 2006) are outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (December 2013)

Khmmm, this is not the message that I would like to see on this page, since the article in question Enhanced Versatile Disk is completely outdated, not just parts of it. Unfortunately the same message shows if I change to {{update|date=December 2013|December 2006}}.

Beyond rewriting {{update}} (which is probably not really possible at this stage), can you make the bot check for unnamed parameters which contain date? --92.242.58.13 (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'll need to have the bot stop checking whether unnamed parameter 2 contain a date for {{update}}. Anomie⚔ 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've also placed a request to add an explicit named paramater, so that both |date= and |lastupdate=could be used in {{update}}. --92.242.58.13 (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The bot change is done now, the bot will ignore |2= in {{update}}. Anomie⚔ 18:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests of nonexistent pages

Can semi-protected edit requests for unprotected pages that don't exist (except talk pages and pages in the Draft namespace) be changed to yellow in the SPERTable instead of red? (Basically, doing the equivalent of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Protected_edit_request&diff=588099244&oldid=587038234 for AnomieBOT) Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not actually correct, though. Anyone with an account may create a page, it's not necessary to become autoconfirmed first. Anomie⚔ 19:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I know it's not perfectly correct, but we don't have a protection level for registered users, and it's better than nothing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We don't? I thought "*" was for everyone including anons and "user" was for registered users? Technical 13 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We do have that as a group, but no protection level corresponding to that group. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There are four levels of protection shown on the screen where the protection level of a page (existing or not) may be altered: "Allow all users"; "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access"; "Require template editor access"; and "Require administrator access". These are commonly known as unprotected; semi-protected; template-protected; and fully-protected. For existing pages, these levels may be set independently for "Edit" and "Move" actions; for non-existent pages, they apply to "Create" only. Since it's the same four levels for both Edit and Create actions, I think that the colours should be consistent; therefore, if a non-existent page is not create-protected, it should show as "red" (it's actually  #ffbfdc  which is between red and magenta in hue); but if it is create-protected (at any level) it should show as the colour appropriate to that level for whichever of PERTable/TPERTable/SPERTable that it is listed in. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see with that is that it implies the wrong template was used. When an IP user requests a page (other than an article) to be created, {{edit semi-protected}}, while not perfect for the task, is the most appropriate template to use. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Unnecessary orphan ref rescue

Many times AnomieBOT has done good work in rescuing lost base cites, but on this edit today it must have gotten confused, because both of those base cites were still present in the article. Is this a bot bug or am I missing something? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The previous edit accidentally commented out a large swath of the article, which left those two references broken (see here and here)—as far as MediaWiki was concerned, the references weren't still present. AnomieBOT had no way of knowing that the commenting out of several sections was erroneous, it just rescued the references. Now that the commenting-out has been fixed, feel free to revert the bot's edit. Anomie⚔ 02:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, because the comment close got botched in that edit. That's what I missed. Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

One more incorrect edit: [15] `a5b (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The bot has no way of knowing that the user who pasted in the broken ref from some other article meant to use a completely different ref with the same name. Anomie⚔ 18:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect "rescue" of orphaned ref

Hi, with this edit, the bot added a ref which was completely irrelevant. It wasn't even in a previous version of the page. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Often people will copy a passage from some related page and not notice they introduced an orphaned ref. So if the named ref doesn't appear at all in the current page's history, the bot will look at linked and backlinked pages to see if there is a unique ref with that name. If so, it assumes that's what was meant and copies it. In this case, apparently some IP did something completely silly and it just happened to match a single ref in a linked article. Anomie⚔ 18:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The article on Arno Tausch

I hope I now improved the article substantially, so that you can remove some of these tags kindest regards John de Norrona (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears you are confused. AnomieBOT did not add any tags to that article, it only added |date= to tags added by a human editor. You should review the history to find who originally added the tag, and contact that person instead. Anomie⚔ 18:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Create-protection shows up as "Not protected"

At [16], 3MB shows up as "Not protected" when it is in fact create-protected. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Er, is this related to #Edit requests of nonexistent pages above? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Above, I'm talking about what should happen when an IP requests a page that isn't protected be created (since they can't create any pages themselves). Here, a page that's SALTed is being requested to be created and isn't flagging as such. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Anomie⚔ 18:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

New magic word that may be of interest

Anomie, on 2, January 2014, Jack submitted gerrit:104999 for review which was merged. Starting January 16th, {{CASCADINGSOURCES}} will work here. (It works on the beta cluster home enwiki now). Use {{CASCADINGSOURCES}} for the current page, or {{CASCADINGSOURCES:pagename}} for some other page. There's some pages you can use to test it linked from [17].

I figured this "may" be of interest to you for an update to this bot to make the "protection level" section more accurate. Keep up the good work! Technical 13 (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm the one who merged it ;) I don't think any changes to the bot are necessary, and I believe Jack and others are already planning to update Module:Protected edit request once something is done about title blacklist protection. Anomie⚔ 18:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Anomie, the Module:Protected edit request may be on hold pending a discussion about what's going to happen to the thousands of archived requests that shouldn't be altered... Technical 13 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really. It can easily be made to not alter closed requests. Besides, AnomieBOT already handles cascading and titleblacklist protection properly. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

xPERTable pages request

Anomie, would it be possible to add a column to these tables that would allow me to sort by last edit to the page? I do realize there may be other edits to the page defeating the purpose of this in some cases, but it would be helpful to see which requests have been untouched the longest. What do you think? Technical 13 (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: Doesn't the "Tagged since" column do what you're asking for? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly... There are a lot of requests where a question is posted, and are awaiting a response. The "Tagged since" column only tells how long the request has been on the page, not if there has been any interaction/correspondence. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure how much benefit there would be, considering that talk page edits may be unrelated to the request. Anomie⚔ 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

New rows are always added to the bottom of the xPERTable pages, so the requests that have been untouched the longest are always the ones at the top. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Very good bot

• [18]. Maybe basic... but very useful. Thank you, Anomie. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks

Template:Cleanup-laundry

Hi, Template:Cleanup-laundry has been redirected to Template:Cleanup-list, but the bot is still creating categories for the old template here. Somehow, the old template needs to be removed from this bot's worklist. Thanks Funandtrvl (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That bot task (DatedCategoryCreator) doesn't care anything about the template, it just works on categories in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. If the only template populating the category has been redirected then the problematic categories are eligible for WP:CSD#G8, so I'll take care of that momentarily. Anomie⚔ 13:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Logging uses of {{Ds/alert}}

Hi Anomie. Based on an emerging consensus at the DS review, I have to establish that it is possible to automate the logging of discretionary sanctions notices. At the moment, when users are given notice of discretionary sanctions, the notice is logged at the related arbitration decision page. When the new Alert template comes into use, we hope to replace manual logging with bot-assisted automated logging. This is the intended behaviour:

1. User A starts a new section on User B's talk page with a substituted transclusion of {{Ds/alert}}.
2. The bot writes a new log entry to Template:Ds/alert/log (or some similar, neutral page).
3. The log entry format would be similar to "User A alerted User B of discretionary sanctions active in TOPIC. <Diff - Timestamp>"
4. TOPIC is taken from |1= of the template instance.
5. Log entries would hopefully be added even if User B reverts User A's message, or corrupts or moves User A's section.

The idea is basically to take the stigma out of discretionary sanctions alerts (which are currently known as notices). Eliminating "naming and shaming" logs, in favour of a neutral tracking spreadsheet maintained by a stable bot seems the ideal solution. Does this sound like something it would be possible? If so, would you be willing to have AnomieBOT do this? Thanks for your consideration. Regards, AGK [•] 12:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems possible, but it would require checking every user talk page edit thanks to requirement #5. Thought also has to be given to what happens if user C comes along and reverts, corrupts, or moves the message (possibly before user B sees it). I'd also suggest incorporating a comment with machine-readable data in the substed output, if possible. AnomieBOT probably could do all this, but it might be better to bring it up at WP:BOTREQ for further discussion first (and maybe someone else would be more interested in doing it, the need to check every user talk edit rather than just periodically checking transclusions of some sort doesn't excite me). Anomie⚔ 18:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Does it matter that Ds/alert includes a Z-number template, tracked through Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Z33?namespace=3. AGK [•] 23:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Z-number helps (I missed seeing that), although it would probably help if the topic were passed to the Z-number template. But you can't just use Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Z33 if you want your requirement #5. Anomie⚔ 00:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I'll ask at BOTREQ. Thanks, AGK [•] 13:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If it is of interest to you, the BOTREQ went nowhere so we turned to AbuseFilter and its tagging feature. It's been a perfect solution! Thanks again for your earlier assistance, AGK [•] 00:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Fc 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⚡ 22:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Should Template:Fc be bot-substed? to see if there is consensus for this. Anomie⚔ 23:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

CHUUClerk: Cannot find info for username in WP:CHUU#None (SUL request) → User:bonu - Fixed

In WP:CHUU#None (SUL request) → User:bonu, I cannot load information for the target username. Please fix me. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 14:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In every instance I've seen this happen, it's because an extra User: was added before the username. Can the bot be updated to handle that? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced request by IP

Request to shut off this Bot immediately as this is loading up incorrect edits to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suhas_Gopinath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.103.105 (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

AnomieBOT has only edited that page once, and that edit was not incorrect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good work, thanks

Specically Mandan, but generally thanks for the good work. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

upload the display picture of Govinda(actor)

hi dear, it is my humble request for you to Please upload the display picture of Govinda(actor) on Wikipedia (Link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govinda_%28actor%29). I have uploaded it so many times but every time some issue occurs regarding license or copyright. I don't know how to fix it or upload image successfully. You can find best pictures of Govinda here

http://themirchmasala.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/govinda-photoshoot.jpg

http://hamaraphotos.com/albums300_2012/wpw-20130504/hpse_normal__1644962347_%20Govinda%20photo%20shoot%20for%20designer%20Suprabha%20Jain%20%289%29.jpg

So it would be much better if you upload either the pictures whose link i have given above of Govinda without any licensing/copyright issue or upload any best picture of Govinda Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanraj6 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

PERTable

Hi, regarding User:AnomieBOT/PERTable; the page that is listed in the first column is the mainpage for the talk page upon which the {{edit protected}} appears, and the row is coloured according to the protection level of that mainpage. But {{edit protected}} takes a positional parameter, being the name of the page that is actually to be edited. This happens in at least two situations: (i) when one talk page is shared by several main pages (often templates); (ii) where a talk page has a subpage but the mainpage does not (e.g. Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion). If that parameter is present, would it be possible to put that into the first column of PERTable and so give the row a more suitable colour? Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The hard part there is that then the bot has to load the content for each talk page and parse out the template. Which is certainly doable, but a bit of a pain. I'll have to give it some thought. Anomie⚔ 11:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Could I add my vote to this request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done What I wound up doing is having the template insert a "urn"-protocol link, so the bot just has to fetch the list of those. Anomie⚔ 00:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello AnomieBOT, MSGJ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Yes, Thank you - it's already showing the two requests on Template talk:Convert/Technical as different entries. I'll let you know if I see problems. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Anomie, can you add a couple of optional parameters to the output of this table per my change so that this table can be neatly transcluded other places (like I want to put it on my edit notice on my talk page so I can see requests when I respond to complaints messages on my talk page. :) Thanks if you can do that. :) Technical 13 (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Anomie, I believe the following changes in the bot code will be productive (and I know will be useful to me)...

[Removed 14:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)]

If you could look this new code over and let me know if it works (I don't see why it wouldn't), I would be tickled to see it implemented. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please put code on a subpage in your userspace, so it's easier to diff it. I should hopefully be back to my normal activity level soon (see the header message) and I'll try to remember to review it then. Anomie⚔ 14:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I can do that. They are mostly minor formating changes to the table. Thanks and I hope your situation is better soon. :) Technical 13 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

St. Jude storm

Hello BOT. Just to let you know. I had to zap this good edit to undo a vandalism in the edit before. SlightSmile 23:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. The bot doesn't mind repeating its edit if necessary, although often it was the vandalism that caused the bot to need to do anything in the first place. Anomie⚔ 03:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

PERTableUpdater not running

The PERTable pages haven't updated in over 24 hours. Any idea why? Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the job hit a memory limit. I bumped it up and restarted it now. Anomie⚔ 01:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be having issues still... it hasn't updated in about 10 hours. --ElHef (Meep?) 23:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like XFS went down earlier today,[19] meaning any job that tries to write to the filesystem needed restarting. Anomie⚔ 00:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Expanding Cn → Citation needed (and others)

I assume this has been thought of but I couldn't find it in the archives, I was just wondering why AnomieBOT doesn't replace templates with their more readable expansions when dating them? Similar to how AWB does it using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects I don't see that it would create any extra server load since your bot is already editing the page but does make the code a bit more readable for later editors. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I think it's pointless to clutter the diffs by bypassing template redirects along with the dating. And I really don't care for WP:AWB/TR in particular because last I looked it seemed to run on "whatever someone decides to dump there" rather than any sort of consensus as to what should actually be bypassed. Anomie⚔ 18:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Right on, Anomie! --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Correcting reference errors

I didn't see that in one article I put <ref anme=WS/>. However, AnomieBOT seems to think this requires deleting the reference entirely. Please tell AnomieBOT that if it knows to fix the word "anme" following "ref", it should be changed to "name". Thank you.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is how far does it go trying to guess what people really meant? But I'll think about if there's a decent way to make it more or less foolproof. Anomie⚔ 12:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Irony

Thought you'd want to know: User_talk:AnomieBOT_III/shutoff/BrokenRedirectDeleter is listed on Special:BrokenRedirects. Cheers! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Fixed, thanks. Anomie⚔ 18:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Change message priority on broken redirect page

Can the "redirect has more than 1 revision and was edited less than 4 days ago" check be moved before the "target page has recent log entries" check, so that if both of those are true, the first one is the one that shows up on the log page? Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

May as well. Should take effect for the next bot run. Anomie⚔ 02:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Infobox Berg1 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⚡ 17:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Anomie: I would add it there, but the page is protected. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 14#Template:Infobox Berg1 for consensus for this action. The necessary preparatory work is done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

and orphaned, so there should be no problem with the transclusion count. Frietjes (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems substituting Infobox Ortsteil einer Gemeinde

See Börnicke for an example. It's adding {{#ifeq:Stadt|Stadt|Nauen| }} and {{{Kreis}}} Instead of the correct parameters. Why is it keeping the German parameter name instead of converting it to English... Kreis -> District. A partial listing of articles can be found here. Bgwhite (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not an issue with the bot. That's just what the template subst's to. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn, I don't know where or what the problems lies with. But, the article is definitely wrong and no, that is not what the template subst's to.

Original template has no mention of Kreis, thus Kreis doesn't show up in the article. After substituting, the completed article now shows "Kreis = {{{Kreis}}}" to the reader.

Having Municipality = {{#ifeq:Stadt|Stadt||Nauen }} in the infobox is wrong. 99% of editors have no clue how to handle template programming. Template programming should never be in articles. Having an if statement that produces blank text isn't helpful.

Bgwhite (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is what the template substs to. I substed it manually at Special:PermanentLink/598690355 using the parameters from Special:PermanentLink/561874877, and you can see from this diff that there is no difference in the resulting infobox wikitext. I also note that "{{{Kreis}}}" does in fact show up in the revision of Börnicke before AnomieBOT's edit. As for having "Municipality = {{#ifeq:Stadt|Stadt||Nauen }}" in the resulting wikitext, it has that because that's what the template substs to and AnomieBOT just substs the template—it's a GIGO problem. Issues like that should have been taken care of before Pigsonthewing told the bot to subst the template. Anomie⚔ 14:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Aslambek Vadalov

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Aslambek Vadalov, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about kavkazcenter.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:

• Aslambek Vadalov revision 598885090:
  • Rescued "Dokku resigned original" from rev 596173167
    Removed in revision 598885090 by Magioladitis (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "removed blacklisted urls using [[Project:AWB|AWB]] (9980)" (removed 2429/12592 bytes, 19%)

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⚡ 20:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Unlisting an active\DRV

It looks as if the bot wrongly unlisted Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 12 with edits like this. User:Hobit has tried restoring it but the bot has reverted. Thincat (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That DRV was grossly malformed. I cleaned it up enough that it should work at this point. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Thincat (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Resurrection (U.S. TV series) ref names

Hello Anomie, you have new messages on Talk:Resurrection (U.S. TV series). — Wyliepedia 03:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied there. Anomie⚔ 11:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

any ideas on this edit? / I didn't mean to revert bot

Hi! At El Museo del Barrio, the bot fixed a reference issue. Unfortunately, the previous edit was vandalism and so it "fixed" vandalism. Any idea why @ClueBot: wouldn't get it first? I couldn't figure out how to fix the template without undoing AnomieBot, so you may need to sic it on that article again. Thanks for any insight StarM 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. No bot needed. — Wyliepedia 03:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to undo the bot's edit in order to undo the vandal edit, that's exactly the correct thing to do. If the article is still broken after the two reverts, the bot will revisit the page in due course. I have no idea why ClueBot didn't get that one; you might try asking that bot's operators. AnomieBOT didn't outrace ClueBot though, as ClueBot usually acts within seconds while AnomieBOT waited two hours before fixing it. Anomie⚔ 11:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both. I felt bad undoing what was a good bot edit, but couldn't figure out how to fix it otherwise. Now off to bother Wylie so I understand what I messed up in the first place so bot doesn't need to be my personal housekeeper :-) StarM 01:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

CHUS clerk

Does AnomieBOT still have the programming to clerk the CHUS page? I'm thinking of asking Legoktm to retire Legobot from clerking there because it seems to not be as stable as AnomieBOT has been at usurp. –xeno^talk 11:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I ever had code to clerk CHUS, just to do the auto-closing. Anomie⚔ 23:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I must have misremembered. It looks like Legobot is moving to a different server, so will hopefully be more stable now. –xeno^talk 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Docking (spacecraft)

Docking (spacecraft), a redirect I created, was deleted by your bot today. I'm not sure why, as I can no longer see the page.

It should be redirecting to Docking and berthing of spacecraft, which contains citations that clarify the distinction between Docking and Berthing.

If your human would get back in touch with me, or just restore the redir, I'm sure we can discuss and fix anything that is needed.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @N2e: It was deleted because it was broken. The full wikitext on the page was

#REDIRECT [[#REDIRECT [[Docking and berthing of spacecraft]]]]

- it is not possible to create nested redirects, nor are nested links permitted. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes perfect sense since it was a (clearly) broken redirect. Now that I can see it, it appears I made some kind of weird copy error in creating the page, and failed to catch my error.

I'm a little confused on what's next. Since it was deleted without an AfD or RfD, then I would assume that only an admin can recreate the redir and clean up my error. Is that true? N2e (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@N2e: The page wasn't WP:SALTed, so any logged-in user could have recreated it, but that would not have recovered the page history. Only an admin can undelete, and so restore the history, so I've  Done that - see the page logs. I've also  fixed it straight away so that a well-intentioned bot won't delete it again. I also  restored Talk:Docking (spacecraft) which had been deleted under WP:CSD#G8 - see page logs. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64! Anomie⚔ 11:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

THANKS! for doing ALL of that. I appreciate it. And the cleanup you did will leave the best/correct record in WP. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

CHUU clerk tasks needs a nudge?

Happy new year! –xeno^talk 15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone put a broken {{Usurp2}} template on the page, which apparently broke stuff. Anomie⚔ 18:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like that was me! Woops. –xeno^talk 16:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think it might need another push Anomie. Thanks, –xeno^talk 17:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks like the shared MySQL server had an OOM situation, which caused some of AnomieBOT's tasks to die. Restarted them. Anomie⚔ 12:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Mary Midgley

Hi, thanks for the reference fix at Mary Midgley! Really helpful bot you've got going. Thanks again. GPRutter (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

SPER/PER table bot down

Hi there, Any idea what the issue is, and how long until it is fixed? . Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 14:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: The job hit its memory limit. I've bumped it up and restarted it. Anomie⚔ 15:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Mdann52talk to me! 19:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Redacted has too many transclusions - Fixed

In an effort to prevent disruption, I refuse to subst templates that have over 100 transclusions unless they are listed at User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. Please either edit the template to remove it from Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, manually subst the existing transclusions, or add it to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force to let me know it is OK to subst them. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 06:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. Added to list for forced substitutions. AGK [•] 06:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: AbuseFilter hit in MS Oasis of the Seas - Fixed

When trying to fix orphaned refs in MS Oasis of the Seas, MediaWiki's edit filter complained about Hit AbuseFilter: archive.is additions with code abusefilter-warning-archiveis. This probably means some anti-spam measure is using AbuseFilter rather than SpamBlacklist and someone didn't properly clean up after themselves, but a human needs to double-check it. The attempted changes were:

• MS Oasis of the Seas revision 602758971:
  • Rescued "KCStar" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "DETsum" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "cruiseweb" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "infra20091124" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "oasis-official" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "AutoTE-1" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "clog100112" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "oots-facts" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "AutoTE-4" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "Log10" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "shiptech20091210" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "oasis20090415" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "worldsbiggest" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "atlantic0906" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "YahooNews" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "SHIPtech" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "DETyard" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "article2746230" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "sun080619" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "livescience" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "seattle20081121" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "shipgaz23" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "season" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "AutoTE-3" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "DETmach" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "oots-press091118" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "DETdim" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "ETB" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "Log3" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "bostonglobe" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "MotorBoats" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "Wart" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "mirror091027" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "cruise1st" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "gizmag" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "AutoF9-1" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "Log6" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)
  • Rescued "HS" from rev 602754013
    Removed in revision 602758971 by Ahecht (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "Removing refs from "references" section to allow [[User:AnomieBOT]] to place them in-line." (removed 10819/26685 bytes, 41%)

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⚡ 19:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)