User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 7

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

Usurped username

I usurped a username a while ago and was thinking of changing all of my previous signatures to my current one to avoid any confusion. Is this something that RedirectBypasser could help me with? - Haymaker (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Changing signatures after a rename isn't something that is normally done, as it's usually considered to be more annoying than helpful for a bot to go editing all those old discussions. The one time this was done that I was involved in was because someone was usurping the old name (there was one other time I remember where someone did it manually, and that caused much drama). Anomie⚔ 11:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of discussions on talk pages where I contributed under my previous name, then made further comments using this name. I am slightly worried that people could be confused, or that in instances of building consensus, it could appear deceitful. Would that change anything? - Haymaker (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Since your old name should redirect to your new one, not really. You could also put a note on your current user page, and you should have commented that you were the same person in those discussions (probably too late now though). Anomie⚔ 10:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Aapravasi Ghat - Fixed

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

You might also use {{subst:User:Anomie/uw-orphans|1=rm diff|2=fix diff}} to let the remover know, if their edit summary indicates they were specifically removing the blacklisted ref. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 17:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Quit your nagging. Werieth (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Quit breaking stuff then. ;) Seriously though, when removing a named reference you should check if it's used elsewhere in the article, especially if you're removing the ref because it's link has been flagged as blacklisted. Anomie⚔ 10:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Weird problem with curly/straight quotes

Hello, in this edit, the bot actually broke the references rather than fixing them. It probably got confused by one of my previous edits, where I attempted to replace the curly quotes with straight ones (it can be hard to tell them apart sometimes with my screen reader). My subsequent edit, made using find/replace, should have fixed things once and for all. Graham87 15:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article was broken in one way (but not by you: Billyshiverstick did it in this edit) and AnomieBOT changed it to be broken in a different way. Your subsequent edit did fix things completely. I've adjusted the bot to take into account the weird variation of "smart" quotes used by Billyshiverstick there, so in the future it will hopefully make the right correction. Thanks for the bug report. Anomie⚔ 11:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Surprised

please clarify where and which article have I engaged in edit war. why is notice placed in my talk page.Rukn950 (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

AnomieBOT didn't leave you that note. Sacrificer43 did. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

thanks and sorry for inconvenience.Rukn950 (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the accidental Notice. I never realized you resolved the conflict with Mufaddal Saifuddin last month my deepest apologies Sacrificer43 (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A little help for Nizo Neto please!

Hi, AnomieBOT, how are you? I made the Latin page of this voice, but I had a problem on Italian page. I put the new Latin page on Wikidata, but untill now it doesn't charge on Wiki.IT, why? Perhaps the Latin name? I don't think so, because lot of other times I Latinized the names and put on Wikidata.

So, I put on Italian page the link editing the page. Please, can you help me? Thnak a lot!

Rei Momo (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of WikiAfrica Incubator

Hello,

I am really hoping you can help, and that I am at the correct place to ask this question. The WikiAfrica Incubator, which is a soft landing for newbie editors in Africa, has been obliterated by a redirect to an article about a museum in South Africa - the Montagu Museum (ironically, the article was originally created in the Incubator). It seems that this bot - AnomieBOT - did this. I have checked the history hoping to revert it back to a previous edition, but for some reason all the logs for the home page of the Incubator seem to have disappeared; this is what I get when I go to the history of the redirect or the history of the page. I didn't think it was possible to do what this user did!!?

I have asked the original creator of the Incubator to help, but I am not sure how often he checks his email or userpage. The other pages do not seem to be affected, such as Help Desk and The step by step guide. Please let me know how I get the original WikiAfrica Incubator back? Looking forward to hearing from someone and finding a solution! Isla Haddow 15:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

further to posting the above, I checked my watchlist and found this "(Deletion log); 00:03 . . AnomieBOT III (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:WikiAfrica/Incubator ‎(G8: Broken redirect to Montagu museum. If this bot is malfunctioning, please report it at User:AnomieBOT III/shutoff/BrokenRedirectDeleter)" I am reporting it and hope you can sort this by restoring the original Incubator home page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islahaddow (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate request. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 125#The Africa Incubator has been redirected to a Museum page and WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Mova nanova

First of all, the Mova Nanova initiative gains its due notability by the fact that it reflects an important aspect of the cultural life of the present day Belarus touching upon the vulnerable issue of the language situation in the country. • Given that the initiative is voluntary and has gained traction among people of different background, then spread to almost all regional centres, still on a voluntary basis, and is acclaimed and supported by notable cultural personalities and famous people, it demonstrates the shift in the attitude of common people towards the Belarusian language, which image has long been “disfigured”. In this case the article has its value for the English-speaking readers by giving the information on the cultural and linguistic sides of Belarusian life, and at the same time demonstrating the social topicality of the issue. • The article represents the translation of the Belarusian version of Wikipedia and supplements the scarce information about Belarus in its English version, helping the English-speaking readership give a more clear view of the country and explaining some of the questions like “Why isn’t Belarusian the language that you can hear on the streets while in Belarus?” and “What is the situation like these days?”, and etc. • For a long time the Belarusian language has been unjustly considered to be the language of peasants and the illiterate, even in the not too distant 90s of the XXth century. This page demonstrates the issues that the Belarusian-speaking minority (and those aspiring to become Belarusian-speaking) is confronted with, and how these issues are tackled with in the present day context, which is again the reflection of the Belarusian cultural aspects. This point is referenced by the figures of the latest census and UNESCO statistics. • The page also arises the problem of the linguistic disproportion of Russian and Belarusian in the bilingual environment on the territory of Belarus (de jure) that has long held true, at certain historical points going to extremes with adverse anti-Belarusian propaganda and targeted governmental actions aimed at its elimination. The page offers the information for further familiarization with by linking to the page about the Belarusian language. • Finally, the information on this page is backed by the references from independent nation-wide online sources of information and news portals (TUT.BY, Belsat TV, Euroradio.fm). The limited quantity of such references can be explained by the fact that usually negative events are given higher priority on the newsworthy scale and get more media coverage, whereas cultural events are given a smaller share of press attention in flagship publications, and are often reprinted from the leading information sources by other minor news organizations. (Moreover, please, give due attention to the fact that the page deals with the de facto linguistic minority, which reduces the press coverage of this activity even more, which doesn’t lessen its notability though). --Умецкі Максім (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


Thanks

Thank you for always doing fascinating works! I don't know how to give you prize, but really, thank you. From Gamera1123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamera1123 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

CHUU clerk feature request

For those of us who have opted in to auto-signing, could the bot mark as "notdone" if we comment as "notdone" in the thread (and forget to tag the {{status}})? i.e. after this post - [1], a colleague had to correct me. This should be considered as 'low' priority. @Anomie: Thank you for your ongoing service! –xenotalk 21:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Kenneth Kraus

Hi, you marked this with the delete request from 2007, yet that 2007 article was for a different individual with the same name. This man is a decorated military hero while the original AFD was for some actor with no references. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As stated at the top of this page and in the page's edit notice: "If you are here because AnomieBOT added {{old AfD multi}} to an article when the old AfD was about a different person with the same name, just remove it. The bot has no way to tell whether it's the same person or a different one." Anomie⚔ 13:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you - I was reading it on a mobile phone and didn't see the notation. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please check BAGbot

Hi Anomie! Could you please check BAGbot? It seems to be in error, and the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval could do with some updating. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Restarted it. Looks like some database errors killed a few of the tasks. Anomie⚔ 13:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I forgot to add this as a thank. Gamera1123 (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't do this if there's already a date there!

I correctly dated a ‘citation needed’ tag, and this bot came along and changed it. Please don't. —James Haigh (talk) 2014-05-08T18:15:05Z

@JamesHaigh: what page? might be an issue of how you dated it. Werieth (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Odroid. I use the RFC 3339 date format. —James Haigh (talk) 2014-05-08T18:46:49Z
And thats why The citation needed template doesnt handle that date format. Werieth (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by handle it? It just shows up as the text “2014-04-25” like with the date accessed field of references. It's the bot that can't handle it. —James Haigh (talk) 2014-05-08T18:55:25Z
@JamesHaigh: Wrong, the citation needed template adds the page to a category for tracking. it added it to Category:Articles with unsourced statements from 2014-04-25 which doesnt exist, it should have been added to Category:Articles with unsourced statements from April 2014. But because of the unknown format (at least for the template) it caused problems. The bot came through and just repaired it, and used the standardized formatting for maintenance templates. Werieth (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Well surely it's better to fix the template rather than to make a bot scan the whole of Wikipedia for ‘wrong’ date formats. Also, both you and the bot have dropped the 25 meaning that it isn't even a full date format. Please fix the template so that the original date can be retained but so that it still categorises by month or whatever else it needs to do. Ideally, all templates should respect my date preference of RFC 3339 which I have set in my user preferences, regardless of how the information is stored. —James Haigh (talk) 2014-05-08T19:40:05Z
You might feel that way but its not, The work required would cause a lot of extra stress to the servers to handle all of that added overhead. The bot isnt scanning all of wikipedia, when an unknown date format is added it goes into a tracking category along with cases where no date is given and then the bot just checks that category. Given the fact that we dont need day granularity and the extra overhead (The citation templates already cause an extra 3-20 seconds of load to render on some pages due to the excessive parsing done by them) keeping Month Year format works better. Werieth (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Those templates are quite ridiculous. I was going to try to suggest an edit, but I spent over an hour trying to navigate and understand the maze of nested/cascaded/transcluded templates pulled in by the Citation needed template, and I'm still not clear on how it would be done. :-( I think by now these templates are definitely big and mature enough to be required to respect the date preference. If the servers can't handle the few bytes of converting ‘2014-04-25’ to the user's preferred date format, then I think you have some very serious efficiency issues to address! —James Haigh (talk) 2014-05-08T21:00:50Z
Note also that removing day granularity but changing to the less efficient date format actually didn't reduce the number of bytes, and in most cases would actually increase the number of bytes. Perhaps processing the months as words rather than numbers also contributes to the processing time, if for example strings are being used where ints could be in some internal code somewhere. —James Haigh (talk) 2014-05-08T21:16:39Z
All of the cleanup templates - whether they be inline like {{citation needed}} or banner like {{refimprove}} - share the common characteristic that the |date= parameter must be given a month and year. There is an established category structure based on that: see for example Category:Clean up categories from May 2014 or Category:Articles with unsourced statements. If you want to get the system changed, it is not a matter for a bot's talk page, but instead an WP:RFC should be raised at WP:VPR (at the very least). Bear in mind that a lot of templates will need to be altered, bots like AnomieBOT and well-used scripts like Twinkle will need to be changed, thousands of people will need to be re-educated, and a huge number of categories will need to be renamed. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Werieth and Redrose64!
As for efficiency, right now the templates have to do zero processing of the date: they just plug the passed text into the category syntax and test if the specified category actually exists. Handling input in multiple date formats would require them actually parse and reformat the dates before plugging them into the category syntax. That's the efficiency issue being mentioned earlier, not bytes of storage. Anomie⚔ 13:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)+
Correct, each template that is added creates an additional thing that needs processed and complex templates (IE templates that parse and convert things) can add extra time to page rendering. Its not an issue of storage, or processing power, its a liner issue. The more work you give a system the longer it takes to complete the task. Right now we have a fairly basic system in place that works for ensuring templates are dated as needed. If we start adding say 0.1 seconds of processing time per maintenance template, just to appease a small number of users and their date preference, lets do some math. We have 4.5 Million articles. I would say 50% or so have at least 1 maintenance or date based category. Some of those pages may have as many as 50-100 different templates (dead links, fact, or whatever). So we are adding on average say 0.2 seconds onto every page render just to meet a small fraction of our users preference in regards to the date display preference. Given a standard cost/benefit analysis for implementing a new system for your visual preference on how dates should be formatted the benefit to the whole of Wikipedia just isnt there. It could be done but the cost cannot be justified for the small number of users it would benefit. Werieth (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

AnomieBOT counts

AnomieBOT output: Target user has 0 undeleted edits and 0 deleted edits. An SUL account (primary cswiki) exists for the target user, with 497 total edits on 25 wikis. The local account is NOT attached. Requesting user has 117 undeleted edits and 14 deleted edits, for a total of 131 edits. An SUL account (primary enwiki) exists for the requesting user, with 147 total edits on 17 wikis.

The requesting user actually made edits on 2 wikis, on the 15 another is just registered with 0 edits on each. Shouldn't AnomieBOT count just the wikis, on which user made more than 0 (zero) edits? --Aleskva (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it report that the account exists on other wikis even if there are no edits? Anomie⚔ 00:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

When you get a chance...

See this edit by AnomieBOT. It would probably be better to change "names" to "name" instead of removing the reference. Probably not a mistake that is likely to come up often, so low priority fix. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Rahil Gupta

Hi ,

This is the first work of mine . And i did it for Rahil Gupta because He has done something substantial in militant hit state and provided job opportunities to so many people. I don not know much about editing but what you people feel good like you can edit accordingly . Thanks,

Arjun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun7007 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

USS Gold Star (AK-12)

Hello, The bot did something weird on USS Gold Star (AK-12). Can you please check it? Thanks! Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jrcrin001: The bot was trying to clean up after this edit of yours which altered a lot of punctuation to # signs, and the word "name" to "na#e"; notice the big red error messages like Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). I've reverted both edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually thought the bot did it! Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey buddy

Good job on the edits. URDNEXT (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Archiving bot requests

Hi Anomie! It appears your bot hasn't archived Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval in quite a while. Is that something your bot still does? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I see it did this only a few hours before your inquiry here, for example. Note that the sections at the bottom of the page are "7 days or 30 entries, whichever is more", meaning they're basically always at 30 entries. Anomie⚔ 13:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry - I don't see the phrase "30 entries" on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. What am I missing? GoingBatty (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it's not on there, but it's in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 54. I had remembered wrong, too: it's 15 entries for Denied and Expired, 30 for Approved. Just doing 7 days would leave the lists empty a lot of the time. Anomie⚔ 13:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Welcome 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⚡ 15:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently someone is spamming the template to every new user they can find. They should really use subst (as in {{subst:Welcome}}) when doing so (if they have to do so at all), as the documentation for the template clearly states. Anomie⚔ 13:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Gender unclear

Please be aware of {{Gender unclear}} and include it in your bot's routine task. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If you set up the categories correctly as described in Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category, the bot will automatically handle it. Anomie⚔ 11:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sofixit

Hi, when did {{sofixit}} get added to the subst list? It doesn't subst cleanly, see this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Here. It's supposed to be on the subst list; I've just fixed it so it substs properly. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Bot error dating maintenance tag {{Cns}}

In this edit the bot replaced the parameter when it should have added another parameter. See the next edit to see how I fixed it. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Final Fantasy Artniks

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

You might also use {{subst:User:Anomie/uw-orphans|1=rm diff|2=fix diff}} to let the remover know, if their edit summary indicates they were specifically removing the blacklisted ref. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 20:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed it. This is exactly why I don't like that odd citation style used in that article. - Aoidh (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Broken redirect

Last night I created a couple of templates (OED1 and OED2) and their doc subpages and also set up the doc subpage for another template (OED). I read about setting up redirects from the doc talk page to the main talk page, but as it was late did nothing. This morning ‎AnomieBOT came along and set up the redirect from the OED doc talk to OED talk, a sensible move. Prompted, I set up the redirects for OED1 and OED2 doc talks but AnomieBOT III has now deleted them, because the main template's talk page doesn't exist! I can't do right for doing wrong it appears. Is it possible for AnomieBOT III to either create the template talk pages in a case like this or else back off until such a time as someone feels the need to discuss the templates? I'll go back and create empty pages and recreate the redirects, but it does seem like an awfull lot of faff just to keep a robot quiet. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Redlinked redirects are speedy deletable under WP:CSD#G8. We don't normally create talk pages just for the sake of their existence; but if a talk page exists for the main template page, one of the AnomieBOTs will go through all the template subpages and create a redir for each missing talk subpage. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Heller

Catz people is dead link[2] Can you fix? Qexigator (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I added an archive.org link. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The Most Dangerous Game

Probably inevitable, but your edit here made it difficult to fix some vandalism in the preceding edit - the subsequent edits are built on your version of the page, which had a chunk vandalised out of it. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

BAGBot

@Anomie:, can you check on your bot, many tasks are in error on your status screen. — xaosflux Talk 12:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

CHUUclerk seems to be on holiday too. –xenotalk 13:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Memory error from the database backend. Restarted. Anomie⚔ 16:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dye sublimation printer- Anomie bot

Just changed slightly + section on relevant talk page. Hope that deals with your concerns. Gravuritas (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

AnomieBot closing file deletion discussion but didn't remove deletion template

Anomie: Looks like AnomieBot closed the discussion for Suva F.C. logo but it did not remove the file for deletion template on the file's page. See this edit and File:Suva-FC-Logo.jpg. Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

AnomieBOT never closes discussions as "keep", so it never has need to remove a deletion template. In the diff you linked, AnomieBOT closed several other discussions on the page but not the one for Suva F.C. logo; that was closed in the previous edit by TLSuda (talk · contribs). Anomie⚔ 11:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I totally forgot to change the template. It is done now. Thanks & cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Anomie, thanks for helping to clear this up! - tucoxn\talk 23:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Error report

In this version, the location of the "request" link was incorrect. (It was actually on Template talk:Userspace draft.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The bot appears to have been listing the request at Wikipedia talk:Article_wizard#Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014, not the identical request at Template talk:Userspace draft#Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014. Anomie⚔ 13:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

This edit doesn't look correct. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 7 still had an open discussion, but also syntax errors, see Special:PermanentLink/615904226. Do you think that something could be done better here? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I see the syntax error was that there was no section header, which is how AnomieBOT segments the page into discussions. It's hard to see how to handle that while also allowing flexibility for notices on the page (e.g. {{Not a ballot}}). Anomie⚔ 11:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you could assume that a page which exceeds a certain size has at least one discussion. ---Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT III

Has this bot stopped? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

AnomieBOT's code for making page edits is good about automatically logging back in if it gets logged out. But the code for doing deletions wasn't. Fixed now. Thanks for letting me know it wasn't working! Anomie⚔ 13:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition in middle of table 6 months late

As this dif shows, at 9.25 this morning an ESP request for Michael Vick appeared in 9th place in the table, rather than at the bottom. However looking at Talk:Michael Vick that request was added on 3 January, and the page hasn't been edited since 28 May, so why does it suddenly appear in the top 1/3 of the table over 6 months after it was added? - Arjayay (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This happened because there are references on the Talk page, but no Reflist template. A recent Wikimedia core code change made it so that references display in a list, even if there is no reflist template. That has resulted in various strangeness, including the duplicated sections in that talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@Arjayay and Jonesey95: Not quite the whole story. This edit of a few minutes ago added a </ref> which had been missing for some time, and in so doing has exposed the rest of the page which had previously been hidden, which is why AnomieBOT hadn't spotted it. As regards its mid-table placement, that's because User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable‎ is arranged chronologically and it was inserted at the position that it should have occupied had that </ref> not been missing at the time that the {{edit semi-protected}} was added. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot warring

see [3] [4] [5] [6] Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I've shut off the task until the bot's "good" version of the template can be updated. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Those edits are showing T13bot operating outside of its approval, as it is editing wikitext besides substituted versions of {{afd top}}. I don't mind changing AnomieBOT's header for TFD (and for FFD and PUF) if it is actually needed, but first I'd like to be sure that the navigation headers in question actually are not considered "metadata". I've pinged Technical 13 (talk · contribs) about this issue.
If the decision is that T13bot needs to be fixed, or if someone would rather stop the malfunctioning T13bot so AnomieBOT can resume work, AnomieBOT's task may be restarted by blanking User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/TFDClerk. Anomie⚔ 11:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've already concluded task 1 for T13bot until I get a ping saying all the templates are properly fixed and then I'll run through one more time. My understanding of what was needed was to remove all "metadata" classes from all pages that showed up on the Special:PrefixIndex for the pages listed by SpinningSpark that were applied inside headers with the .boilerplate and .xfd .xfd-close classes. Either way, feel free to restart AnomieBOT as T13bot is not running until the templates are all fixed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

page deleted

The bot has deleted my page the wee fellas for some reason. Can you put it back please

Dave Robertson 21:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davyrobertson (talk • contribs)

@Davyrobertson: AnomieBOT does not delete pages. The Wee Fellas was deleted by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs); the deletion log is here. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
And I deleted it because, in all honesty, you did not assert any notability for that novel whatsoever. For a start, it's entirely self-published, which right at the start puts it deep in the negative. There's one bit of media coverage... from the author's hometown, so that doesn't count either. Plus there's something about how the author won some journalism awards several years back. Not relevant to an article about his book. So... no statements about notability. None. Notability not asserted. Delete. DS (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

page deleted

The bot has deleted my page the wee fellas for some reason. Can you put it back please

Dave Robertson 21:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davyrobertson (talk • contribs)

@Davyrobertson: AnomieBOT does not delete pages. The Wee Fellas was deleted by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs); the deletion log is here. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
And I deleted it because, in all honesty, you did not assert any notability for that novel whatsoever. For a start, it's entirely self-published, which right at the start puts it deep in the negative. There's one bit of media coverage... from the author's hometown, so that doesn't count either. Plus there's something about how the author won some journalism awards several years back. Not relevant to an article about his book. So... no statements about notability. None. Notability not asserted. Delete. DS (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Naivas Redirect

Hi User:AnomieBOT, I added a redirect page to Naivas Limited. The actual page was still loading. The Page has been created again. Kindly have a look. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zotezangu (talk • contribs) 09:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't create redirects until the target page exists. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Namespace check

Hi, is it possible to configure AnomieBOT so that it doesn't subst: {{hi}} when not used in User talk: space? Otherwise, this happens. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not possible at this time. I'll try to think of a decent way to make it possible though. Anomie⚔ 10:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

/EDITREQTable is great but has date issue

I requested a move that was undone and now the edit request on that page is showing a recent date (but not either move date) instead of the actual request date. Apparently y'all are relying on something relating to move log rather than the actual date the edit request was added to the page. Please see if this is a bug or other coding issue. Frieda Beamy (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The bot estimates the date of application by using the page-touched timestamp when it first sees the page having an active request. Anomie⚔ 01:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Any chance this reliance can be changed in the case of moves, or perhaps overriden on a case basis when mistaken? Priority has a lot of importance to the requesters. Frieda Beamy (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Panela

Citation added on nutritional value of panela Neuralia (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your ongoing work on fixing maintenance tags... I must be tired tonight because I know you've fixed several of mine tonight. Thanks for staying consistently on top of them! CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
I know you're a bot, but still, what would I do if my stupid mistakes like this weren't fixed? Jr8825 • Talk 15:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
Please take this glorious purple barnstar as an apology and thank you for cleaning up after my forgetting to add the date to a couple of my [citation needed] tags. You are an amazing little AI and wikipedia thanks you. Kazinsal (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Rescuing (wrong) orphaned ref from another article

[7]: It appears that there hadn't actually been a ref with that name in the version history (rather, the author of the preceding edit appears to have misunderstood the ref syntax). In that case, AnomieBOT should not try to rescue anything, as ref names are not unique across articles ;) Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite often the same-named ref in linked articles is actually intended to be the same ref. Anomie⚔ 23:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Why does Anome bot add tags to sentences ending with references? "Who? why? where?" are all answered in the reference. Bots should not be given tasks requiring a degree of human comprehension. Urselius (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It merely dates the tags. That way editors can see for how long the issues have been left unattended. If, for instance, an unsourced claim has been sitting there for a year without anybody providing a reference, it could be used as a rationale for removing it. Favonian (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Not sure how human you are, but thanks for the inadvertent deletion of source information. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

DRV update missing?

Hi, is it possible that the bot has failed to correctly update Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active? Today's discussions are not listed. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Database error caused some tasks to stop. I've restarted them now. Anomie⚔ 11:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

PUF closer

Is something wrong with the PUF closer? Take a look at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 July 30. The first file in the list, File:MCOLIVERAS.jpeg, was deleted by User:TLSuda at 01:51:32, and the discussion was closed by User:Armbrust at 09:54:52. I would have expected the bot to close the discussion several hours earlier. Same problem with other files on that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

See the previous section: certain bot tasks were down due to an out-of-memory issue until I restarted it earlier. I hope I've also found the source of the problem, so this won't keep happening. Anomie⚔ 14:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Augustus Baker Pierce

REDIRECT to Augustus Baker Peirce is no longer a broken link and can be restored if possible. Thank you. Doug butler (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you bot! Asdklf; (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion!

Thank you for this amazing bot fixing the ref errors. I don't know if there is something for this yet, but I have noted quite a number of cases of ref errors where the problem lies in a "</ref>" inputted as "</ref". Could this be added to the bot too? WingsEdge 15:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrw08 (talk • contribs)

Dating infobox

Hi, the bot added a date= parameter to a transclusion of {{infobox OS}} diff. Is this a bug/mistake or is there a reason for this? Thanks, ♣ Ameliorate! 18:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox OS version used to take a "date" parameter, which it used to apply to a {{fact}} tag when no reference was specified for various dates. In the recent merger this feature appears to have been removed, so Template:Infobox OS version should be removed from WP:AWB/DT (which I just did). Anomie⚔ 19:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Cosmetic edit

What was Special:Diff/621769122 trying to do? All it did was move a blank line in the wikitext without any change to the display output, which violates WP:COSMETICBOT. Can this be fixed? (Ping me when you reply, please.) jcgoble3 (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jcgoble3: A request at User talk:Anomie/Archives/2014#TFDClerk pointed out that the header being applied by the bot was causing extra whitespace in the page when the traditional whitespace was also included above the first section header, so I updated the code to remove the blank line between the category and the comment that was causing the problem. That did, unfortunately, cause the bot to add the traditional whitespace before the first section header, resulting in the edit apparently moving whitespace rather than removing it. Anomie⚔ 11:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, but the edit linked to by Netoholic shows two blank lines, which wold indeed cause the whitespace and is indeed a problem that should be fixed. Here, the bot attempted to remove only a single blank line, which when directly between headers (remember that comments are stripped out early in the parsing process) will never have any effect compared to zero blank lines. So the bot probably should only be touching the page if there are multiple blank lines between the date header and the first discussion header. jcgoble3 (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You do not seem to have understood my explanation. At any rate, unless someone goes and moves around the spaces again the bot won't repeat the edit, since the header will remain in the new format. Anomie⚔ 02:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

SPERTable - Syrian Civil War detailed map

The SPERTable contains two entries for the Syrian Civil War detailed map, one for the template and one for the module, both of which redirect to Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War. However, both edit requests currently on that talk page have been answered, and neither match the dates for the two entries on SPERTable. -- ferret (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

They'd been archived. I looked in Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and found Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 21, so I made this edit. They should drop out of the list now. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, didn't know it would catch archives. I'll remember to check there next time. -- ferret (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, it should have linked the archive page as the "request" link; apparently it's not updating for the archiving. I'll have to fix that. Anomie⚔ 10:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done Special:Diff/622460786/prev Anomie⚔ 12:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality resolved

Another contributor cleaned up the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angle21022014 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Johnny Rodz

I am a mere human, and thus subject to many faults and errors, but i cannot for the life of me see how this edit is helpful; surely it is introducing an incorrect reference (a duplicate entry posing as a citation) into the list? I reverted once, but have no intention of getting into an edit war with a bot, so perhaps you (or your knowledgeable owner) could look and see what is supposed to be going on? Thanks & Cheers, LindsayHello 09:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@LindsayH: It's a legacy of this edit of 18:33, 24 August 2014, and subsequent edits that only partially fixed the damage. The bot was doing the best that it could with bad markup. You need to either revert back to the version before that edit, or work out what that editor was trying to do, and do it properly. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@LindsayH: Thanks Redrose64. It looks like the IP was trying to add a new unsourced entry to the list, so I cleaned things up to how they would be if that had been done correctly. Anomie⚔ 10:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both, Redrose64 and Anomie; i knew something had gone wrong somewhere but, recognising my limitations, i could not see what. You are both frequently and successfully in my watchlist (as is AnomieBOT ~ funnily enough, it's edited since me on at least one article just this morning), so i feel confident you have solved the issue. Thanks again. Cheers, LindsayHello 12:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProjectTagger run for women writers

Hi Anomie. We're ready for a WikiProjectTagger run at WikiProject Women writers. The discussion approving the categories can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers#Scope and bot request. The categories we'd like to run are in the collapsed box 'Categories within the scope of this WikiProject'. I hope it's okay that some categories are listed more than once. gobonobo + c 02:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gobonobo: I see that some of the cats are struck through; it's not clear to me whether those cats should be included or excluded. I think that the bot request would be clearer if the list mentioned only those categories that are definitely to be included in the bot run. BTW where is Jane Austen? --Redrose64 (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Struck through means excluded, generally, and the surrounding comments seem to indicate that's what was intended ("Feel free to add or strike categories"). It's fine that categories are listed multiple times, although I'll uniquify the list anyway. I'll try to get this started later today. Anomie⚔ 10:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gobonobo: A few questions:
Thanks. Anomie⚔ 12:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@Anomie: Yes, please copy the class from other projects' banners. Let's hold off on all of those categories that you mentioned. I went ahead and struck them from the list. The adaptations one is definitely out of scope and the others could have false positives so I can do them manually. gobonobo + c 14:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll be starting the bot in a few minutes. If something goes wrong, post to User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/WikiProjectWorker to stop the bot. Anomie⚔ 01:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

AnomieBOT III apparently thinks redirects to topics are broken links

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T73084

I've been doing a bunch of testing with Flow and as part of that I made a redirect to a flow topic at User:Oiyarbepsy/flow redirect test. This redirect works just find, but it appears on the bot's list of broken redirects, here User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects. These redirects are rare at this point, but there will likely be more in the future, and they shouldn't be deleted by bots. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It turns out there's some missing rows in the Tool Labs database. Bug filed. Anomie⚔ 10:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Camillo Bregant

The required citation is a line further under *1 and *2Hamilkar1893 (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The user you need to talk to about it is not AnomieBOT. Try the person who made this edit. Anomie⚔ 02:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Small bug in template substitution

I've spotted a small bug in the automatic substitution. Someone left me a welcome template, which was then substed by AnomieBOT. But there's a small error: near the bottom of {{Welcome to Wikipedia}}, the REVISIONUSER keyword occurs inside a "urlencode". The bot missed this and left a space inside the URL. It's easier to see this by looking at the next edit where I fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John of Reading (talk • contribs) 19:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The handling of signatures and other mentions of the username is somewhat simplistic: the bot simply replaces its own signature with a generic one for the user it thinks added the template, and its own name with the name of that user. It doesn't know whether the name was supposed to be percent-encoded ("AnomieBOT" doesn't have any characters that need encoding) or the like. Besides renaming the bot, always encoding the user name everywhere it's getting substed, or reimplementing a good chunk of the MediaWiki parser, I can't think of any way to fix this. Anomie⚔ 10:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough! Thanks for having a look at it. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we could somehow use gerrit:160570 to make this more robust. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
That seems unlikely. I did make a change to try to detect username-in-URL though, and forgot to come back here and mention it. Anomie⚔ 23:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Help of displacement of Semi - protection

Hi, can you move a page Persib Bandung is not protected to semi-protected? Excuse me, cause a lot of people anonymously who aren't responsible for the editing. Thankyou. (Tommy 16:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy1933 (talk • contribs)

@Tommy1933: AnomieBOT is a bot account, not a human editor; it also doesn't protect pages. You need to file a request at WP:RFPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Mon–Fayette Expressway

Hey I undid your edit to add the maintenance tag, but only for technical reasons. I needed to undo your edit so I could undo the preceding edit that added several grammatical errors. When I undid that edit I re-added the maintenance tag that you had put in. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This is great

This is great. Could it do this? ~ R.T.G 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What, shove everything into list-defined references? It could if I were to put that work into it, but changing the format of articles isn't a good idea for a bot without consensus that every article should be changed in that way. Anomie⚔ 10:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@RTG: It looks like you converted many refs in Snow White to the WP:LDR style, and the article did not previously have any of those. This goes against WP:CITEVAR: the citation style of the article should not have been changed without first discussing at Talk:Snow White. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Anomie,Yeah I supposed it might involve rewriting the whole thing, but still so important a bot anyway :)
@Redrose64: Once the text of referencing is outweighing the text of the article in the edit box, or is threaded through it closely, frustration is apparent. It is policy to reference inline, and that means umpteen uses of the same reference, so as standard, references are already removed from the place in which they are put, and each clinging to an area of the text when in fact they belong to a range of the text. I bet, if you use copy and paste to apply citation templates, and remove them from the prose, they become crystal clear and intuitive for editor, reviewer, researcher, whatever.
But, I wouldn't make it policy and would even make a voice against making it policy to reference in that way for the simple reason, that simple ref tags are simple, and tidying them up is a matter of tidy up.
Just to note, what CITEVAR refers to is, The Style, Chapter "Of Titles And", Their Authors, Publishers: Etc,. (2014), in the case that a uniform style is established (and to be honest I didn't really look carefully at that bit before and I've done the edit several times so you've given me something to watch out for) ~ R.T.G 15:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

ITN/C archiving

Hi Anomie and AnomieBOT. The bot hasn't archived Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates‎ for a few days. Whenever you have time, yada yada yada, thanks in advance. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Restarted the task. Anomie⚔ 11:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Working fine now, thanks for the fix. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot recreating old category pages

Hi, your bot has recently recreated category pages Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from December 2012 and Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from September 2007, both of which are empty. A while back it recreated another dead cat page, but I can't remember which one since it was a while back. I've tagged both above for speedy deletion. Thought you should know. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

More likely someone edited an article to put it in the category, then the bot created the then-non-empty category, then the edit to the article was reverted or fixed. It's fairly common that newbies think that the "date" parameter is supposed to be a guess at when sources might have been available rather than an indication as to when the tag was added. Anomie⚔ 11:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, thanks for explaining that; I wondered why these empty cat pages were randomly appearing. My insight into the minds of newbies has obviously diminished over the years. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Cock up

The bot made a copckup not only broken syntax but wrong rescue too.Lihaas (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks as always! Gamera1123 (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
+1. The designer of this bot is a genius, both for the concept and the execution. -sche (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/TFDClerk.pm

Hey Anomie, I was wondering if when you get a moment if you would be willing to update the source for User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/TFDClerk.pm to replace <font color="gray">...</font> with <span style="color: gray;">...</span>. This would help the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 131#Time to knock out obsolete HTML tags project that is ongoing on wiki. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose. Please stalk this talk page in case people complain like they did last time I altered the header. Anomie⚔ 18:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, already on my watchlist.  :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Jaime Sánchez (actor)

Hello Anomie, I'm writing Jaime Sánchez (actor)'s biography and your bot removes always the message "translated page". And it's really a translation of the French Wikipédia page. Thanks.--EvyJones (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@EvyJones: That's because you aren't supposed to put that tag on the article. You're supposed to put it on the talk page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok ! Thank you very much :) --EvyJones (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Even more baklava for you!

Thank you bot! :) Life is too short to drink cheap wine. (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Bot error in a particular article

The bot restored a link in the article about Michael Moriarty that leads to a web-page that is of no use to the article, it doesn't have anything to do with the article, and doesn't support anything in the article. The material that the link was pretending to footnote is contentious material about a living person, and that is definitely not allowed according to WP:ALIVE particularly when it is either unsourced or poorly sourced. I will go ahead and undo the bots edit. Ashenderflickin (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I see what alerted the bot: a second use of the footnote in the article, leaving an error message. I removed that also, since the link is erroneous and non-supporting. Ashenderflickin (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks so much for rescuing an orphaned reference on Michigan Wolverines field hockey from the counterpart Iowa Hawkeyes article. I really appreciate it, AnomieBOT! Michael Barera (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

New Task Request: update a domain name on citations

There are numerous articles (over 120 per the search page), typically related to various weapons, which have links and cites directed to a website which has changed its domain name. The site has preserved its original page names and structure, so updating the WP articles is fairly straightforward: just replace the old domain name with the new while preserving the page name. I did over twenty of them manually before realizing life is too short.

So I'm hoping you can add a task for AnomieBOT to find instances of the old URL http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ and replace it with the correct URL http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/, or alternatively, tell me to whom I might speak with to have this task carried out.

Thanks!

--Dziban303 (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dziban303: I don't have a task pre-approved for this, so you'd probably get a faster response at WP:BOTREQ. Anomie⚔ 13:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@Anomie: Thanks, I'll make a request there. Dziban303 (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProjectTagger run #2 for women writers

Hi Anomie. We're ready for the next WikiProjectTagger run at WikiProject Women writers. The discussion approving the categories can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers#Proposed cats for the next project banner bot run. The categories we'd like to run are in the collapsed box 'New categories within the scope of this WikiProject - October 2014'. As before, please copy class from other projects' banners. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Bot started to run over only the 37 new categories. Anomie⚔ 13:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Anomie. Appreciate what you do! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

mw:Extension:SecurePoll#Usage

I suspect this is now out of date. Would you be able to take a moment to update it? Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, why did I post this on the bot's talk page? Sorry! — This, that and the other (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing of Alcatel One Touch page

Hello. I'm going to be making some edits to the Alcatel One Touch page. Just wanted to give you a heads up, as I know you’ve worked on it previously. Please review my updates when you get the chance.

Thanks, — Fotdt (talk) 6:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Blaze is not RS

All citations for The Blaze was removed because it is biased and therefore not WP:RS. So the biased citations found in the Camp Fire article were replaced by non-biased citations either from bonafied journalistic citations or from a Camp Fire entity. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Steelbeard1: If AnomieBOT restored a source, it's because you didn't remove it all the way. If you're sure that a source should be removed, then make sure you remove it everywhere it appears. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Mirage III Cost

HI,CAN YOU HELP ME ABOUT Mirage III cost.thanks 175.136.106.57 (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations

Possible bug at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations where in this change it added the |edited since request=yes to the template that was used as the block description. In a later edit it then removed the nowiki there which made the remainder of the page unreadable. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Anomie⚔ 11:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bot error?

This edit to Frasier syndrome doesn't appear to be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The article was throwing this cite error (namely that ref names cannot be simple integers), which the bot properly fixed. Granted, it didn't use the most helpful ref names, but as a bot, it doesn't know what would be best, and needs to choose a name guaranteed to not already be in use on the article. jcgoble3 (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

DRV for the 18th was removed

Not sure what the bot is looking for, but the DRV for the 18th was removed. I returned it by hand but I'm not sure what to do to stop it from doing the same thing next time. Hobit (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/638700454/638742198 looks like it fixed the problem. Anomie⚔ 11:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Lands of Lainshaw

I wrote the original article and finally got around to splitting of the 'Murder of Hugh Montgomerie' and enlarging it - thanks for your help with the references. Rosser Gruffydd 10:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Bot error in Cadena Cafes Limited

Hi AnomieBOT. In this edit the bot spotted that <ref name=Tesco> was an orphan and made a very strange correction. The actual problem was that the name should have been "tesco", not "Tesco". --Northernhenge (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

GREAT WORK, Rescuing orphaned refs ("FT1" from Flash Boys))

AnomieBOT,

just wanted to say, NICE JOB !! The designer of this bot is a genius, both for the concept and the execution

David Adam Kess (talk) 7:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Boys

AnomieBOT.... GREAT WORK, Rescuing orphaned refs ("FT1" from Flash Boys)).

December 2014

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to 2015 Australian Open, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I just want it to be clearly. 333-blue 09:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't leave pointless Twinkle warnings for bots. It's at best useless and can be annoying, particularly when it turns out you are in the wrong. Anomie⚔ 12:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ministry of Disaster Management deletion error

Hi, there has been a deletion error, Ministry of Disaster Management has been deleted citing copyright infringement, if this is correct I will fix it, if it is not can you please restore it. Thanks.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT had nothing to do with the deletion of that page. Anomie⚔ 16:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Charles M. R. Dumas

Dear AnomieBOT; I created a redirect from Charles M. R. Dumas to Charles Dumas (newspaperman) which you deleted as a broken link. I erred in creating the redirect before the page wen live and you caught me out. If I promise not to do it again would you restore it? I'd be terribly grateful. Doug butler (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've undeleted your redirect. Anomie⚔ (not AnomieBOT) 00:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Andrej Bauer

Please see my remarks at the newly created article Andrej Bauer talk page. Please do not delete the article without any discussion.--Foobarnix (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you review the tags?

Hello AnomieBOT, I removed some weasel words from Dharmasiri Gamage and removed the tags were placed there too. Now I see you have again put the same tags on the top. I think there are no any weasel words in that article any more. But I'm not sure anyway. Could you review it and if you will find any weasel words there point them out? Then somebody will remove them. Thanks. Madunai (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Madunai: The tags at the top were not added by AnomieBOT (which is a bot, not a human editor) - it merely dated them. They were added by Dan arndt (talk · contribs) with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

TfD updating

Hi Anomie, the TfD clerking task isn't removing dec 17 and dec 19 from the TfD list, probably because of the grouping I did there. What is the proper way to group discussions or close grouped discussions so that the bot will still pick them up? I could archive them manually, but I'd rather just know the right way to do this.

The bot doesn't think that the following sections are closed, since someone did one close template trying to cover all the sections:
Anomie⚔ 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
To clarify the requirements: any level 4, 5, or 6 subsection that doesn't have a {{tfd link}} in it is ignored. Any such subsection that does have that template must have the beginning part of {{tfd top}} (specifically <div class="boilerplate and certain other classes") at the start to be considered closed. The only thing allowed to come before the {{tfd top}} fragment is {{delrevxfd}}. Anomie⚔ 16:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I know someone used a single close template trying to cover all sections; that someone was me, hence me asking how to do that right. The right way then is to make them separate closes, and refer to the central close in the separate closes I guess? Or do you have other suggestions? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that would probably be best. Anomie⚔ 03:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@Martijn Hoekstra: Ah, the bot is supposed to support what you did in Special:Diff/643377154/643378042. But it got confused by the resulting header-closebox-subheader and made this bad "fix". I've fixed the bot not to do that broken "fix", and basically reverted the "Iranian FIFA Futsal World Championship navboxes" section to your first attempt since that's much cleaner. Sorry for the trouble. Anomie⚔ 16:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem, I suffer of no "bot entitlement" and consider it a pretty great boon that I don't have to do all that stuff myself. If it does something wrong when I do something weird, I'm not really complaining. Thank you for adding my edgecase! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/644117974

AnomieBOT lists one file too much per discussion page. Where it says 1, it should say 0, and where it says 2, it should say 1. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

D'oh, thanks for pointing that out! The extra section there was the lead. A few minutes ago I updated the FFD and PUI clerking code to bring it closer to that for TFD, and apparently the check that was being used for TFD was broken but was never being hit since TFD additionally requires {{tfd links}} for a section to "count".
The bot will fix it automatically the next time it runs. Anomie⚔ 17:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Substitute my praise block template in ClueBot Commons Praise page!

I used the template but want to change the message. Help? 220.255.209.39 (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 January 25

The bot has just closed a lot of discussions stating that the files do not exist, but the files do exist, at least the last few files on the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

See also User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/TFDClerk. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I shut that one down too. If another one malfunctions, I think it might be best to block the bot? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
That's unlikely to be helpful, unless everything is breaking. Anomie⚔ 17:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't quite sure if the same defect would manifest in (many) other tasks, and if so, which, which is the only reason I would suggest it - but really didn't want to do as not to break unrelated tasks. It's definitely not something I would have wanted to do, so I'm glad to hear it's not necessary. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, something went weird around 08:25 UTC where the API would occasionally not return any details about any pages, but was still somehow returning valid JSON data. It may have resolved itself sometime after 10:20 UTC, based on patterns of errors I'm seeing in logs. Unfortunately there's no indication as to what exactly was going on beyond that. Anomie⚔ 18:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
That means the shutoffs of PUICloser and TFDClerk can be cleared again, I assume? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd be more comfortable if I knew why things broke in the first place, but as long as things don't break again it should be fine. Of course, at the moment everything is broken because of security updates being made that took down tools-db. Anomie⚔ 20:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I completely missed that tools-db is down. For as far as TFDClerk is concerned, I'm pretty dependent on it, but it's not a matter of minutes. For the PUICloser task I also stopped I have no idea; I haven't worked in that area. If the bot is back up tomorrow or in a few days, that should be fine AFAIC. If you think more analyses is still possible and you prefer to do that first, I'm not going to push you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit requests

AnomieBot doesn't seem to be updating the edit request table: User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable. However there certainly are edit requests being made: [8] [9]. Stickee (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: Now back online as of 06:54, 28 January 2015‎. Stickee (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Unsigned 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⚡ 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No substitution, please. It is easier to read the page syntax if it isn't substituted. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: If it's not substituted, the timestamps that it encloses are ignored by archiving bots, see this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, then fix the bots instead of substituting the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't - I'm not the bot owner. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I note it has long been the case that that template has been recommended to be substituted. Anomie⚔ 21:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

TFDClerk: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 25 is broken - Fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 25 contains the "is_closed" regex but not at the beginning of the section. Probably someone put the {{tfd top}} before a section header instead of after. Anyway, I can't do anything to that page until someone fixes it. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed with [10] Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Delay before substituting

Anomiebot/Anomie, several editors at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 134#Automatically substituting Template:Unsigned and friends have stated their preferences that bots wait 7 days before substituting the unsigned templates. Is this a feasible thing for your bot to do? Please comment at the section linked. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's even close to consensus for such a thing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Since when is 1 "several"? Anomie⚔ 20:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Technical 13 of course, and user:xensyria stated "temporary transclusion for a fixed time before this isn't a bad idea", so that's two. I didn't count when I originally posted. I only posted here to get a quick idea if that's technically feasible and worth the effort, I'm not telling you to do it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bot#2 stuck ?

I've noticed that FfD hasn't been updated for two days. AnomieBOT-2looks to be stuck on the BAGBot task. Peripitus (Talk) 10:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it does appear so. I'll restart it in a little bit, but first I'm going to try to see if I can figure out what it's hung up on. Anomie⚔ 14:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

  • A hard working bot deserves a refreshing glass of motor oil!
    A hard working bot deserves a refreshing glass of motor oil!

Been on a bit of an extended sabbatical, and forgot to date a whole bunch of maintenance tags. Thanks for the tidy up, AnomieBOT. xx --Haruth (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT thanks you. Anomie⚔ 17:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Startled by edits to old AFDs

I was startled to see edits by this bot to 4 old AFD discussions that I was involved in; in fact, I almost reported the incident as someone anonymously attacking me in old AFDs, until I noticed that the anonymous edits themselves were all old, only the AnomieBOT edits were new. Why is the bot adding tags to these ancient closed discussions? Brianyoumans (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Brianyoumans: Please give examples. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Best guess - Anomiebot recently started substituting {{unsigned}} templates after a consensus to do so at Village Pump Technical. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed this too; lots edits to old AFDs and other discussions from 2006ish. The bot is going around substituting templates for some reason. Annoying to see the watchlist fill up with it, but not a big deal. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn: That "for some reason" would be this edit. I suspect that the substitution of {{unsigned}} is what Brianyoumans (talk · contribs) refers to, but with the phrase "the bot adding tags", they give the impression that AnomieBOT is placing additional templates, and so I'd like to be sure, which is why I asked for examples. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I am not the most technically sophisticated editor, what I meant was just the substitutions. I apologize for the lack of clarity. I'm fine with the bot messing with old discussions now that I know what's going on. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Substing of old unsigned comments

I'm not sure why very old unsigned comments need to be substed, but that aside, my Watchlist is utterly cluttered with the Bot's edits today, and yes, I can click to hide bots, but actually, I often am looking for errors made by bots in my Watchlist.

If I can't persuade you that edits before a certain date aren't worth bothering with, perhaps I can ask you to find a way to slow the bot down? --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the reason why, see #Startled by edits to old AFDs just above.
As for slowing down, I wonder whether dragging out the watchlist disruption would really be better (for most people, anyway) than getting it over with faster. Anomie⚔ 14:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've now read the section above and am none the wiser as to why it's necessary. On the speed issue, there'd be no disruption if it were one or two entries per day, like a whole range of regular bot duties. --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The reason is simple enough: consensus was for it. One or two entries per day would take about 20 years to complete, no. Anomie⚔ 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I find it strange that you complain about bot edits cluttering your watchlist, yet you don't want to use the very feature that was designed to solve this problem ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Lordy. OK. Point by point then:
I monitor bot edits on my Watchlist for when bots get things wrong, or because a bot edit may have followed human edit/s. None of which applies to substing of templates on pages that are several years old.
The reason for the substing is not the consensus; it would be more helpful to point me to where I can read the discussion - I was previously pointed to the section above and I replied that I didn't understand a rationale from the section above.
I meant a likely impact of one or two entries per day on an individual's Watchlist, not one or two edits per day by the bot.
Your bot is currently running at ~5 susbts per minute. I'm a good-faith editor telling you that it's having a detrimental effect on my ability to do my work. I'm just asking if it can please slow down. --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The bot has no way of knowing how large an individual's watchlist is, nor whether a specific page is on any given individual's watchlist or not. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. That's why I'm asking for it to slow down. --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought the link to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 134#Automatically substituting Template:Unsigned and friends was in the section above. I should have actually checked that.
At the current rates of substing, the bot should be done in around 18 or 19 hours. Anomie⚔ 14:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Both aspects of that were very helpful. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Using #section-h to transclude pending discussions at TfD index

Now that the #section-h parser function is available (see mw:Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion#Transcluding sections by headings), would it be possible to transclude individual TfD entries, rather that the whole day's listing, under Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions? For example: 

==== [[Template:InChI]] ====
{{#section-h:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 10|[[Template:InChI]]}}

Template:InChI

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:InChI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Originally intended to format InChI identifier for a chemical substance. Not maintained since 2009, no activity in its parent Wikipedia:InChI long time either. Formatting control taken over by {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} (together 15000 transc's, see also WT:Chemical infobox sections). These are developed, maintained and bot-verification is in place. No articles use it, also because recently I checked & moved any significant the data into {{Chembox}} on the page. DePiep (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • delete Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I could envisage that this could be used to format etc. an in-prose InChI, but then, I do not see any reason to put that in the text for discussion or evaluation (other than in examples on the InChI-wikipage, but to have a template for that is superfluous). Delete. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Alakzi (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible, probably. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to have so many section transclusions on the page though. Anomie⚔ 01:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop editing my user page

You subst'd a template I have on my user page that I keep unsubst'd for reference purposes. When I changed it back, with an explanation, the bot ignored that, and reverted it. Per WP:SUBST, {{unsigned2}} is "under debate", and with the particular reason I'm using it, subst'ing there breaks what I'm trying to do. Argyriou (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Bots aren't smart enough to read what you put in edit summaries. The documentation page linked in the bot's edit summary tells you how to prevent it substing the demo usages.
As for "under debate", recent discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 134#Automatically substituting Template:Unsigned and friends concluded that these templates should be substituted. Anomie⚔ 23:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

About Ecuatoriana de Aviación

Ecuatoriana de Aviación never flew to Israel, Spain, Bolivia, Costa Rica and Brazil. Someone should change that false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.236.138 (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Add {{Show by}} to ShowByDateSubster

Currently the ShowByDateSubster works with the {{Show by date}} template, substituting the template with just the text after parameter as the given dates elapse. I have created a similar template, {{Show by}}, which takes a date/time string as input instead of separate parameters for the year, month, and day. Is it possible to have ShowByDateSubster work with this template as well? Would it be useful to add pages to a category such as Category:Pages with expired Show by templates when the date elapses? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The hard part would be that the bot would have to understand all the craziness that PHP's strtotime() supports. I'd rather not. Anomie⚔ 01:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Anomie, I changed the template so that it now substs in {{Show by/iso}}, with the time represented as an ISO 8601 formatted date (e.g. 2015-02-26T14:58:52+00:00). This way the #time parser function takes care of the strtotime() craziness. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Misplaced comment with no header)

Hi I am jatinpb11. Will you please help me out how I edit the pages in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatinpb11 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Salvaging refs

Hi Anomie. I hate deleting refs, as they are valuable and people go to a lot of trouble to find sources for old content that was inserted in the time when we were not that strict on adding sources immediately. However, how do I proceed when the sources do not say what the text says, and therefore should be removed? How can these be saved for future use wehen the article expands? Right now, sources [7] and [8] say nothing about juice, nor do they confirm the name tabaldi in Sudan or the alternative tabladi that was cited in the intro, which said it was Arabic (I have since removed foreign names from the intro [as per edit summary]). I don't want to just delete the refs, but don't know how/ where to salvage them. Your input would be much appreciated. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your best bet in that case would probably be to copy them onto the talk page, possibly using {{Refideas}}. Anomie⚔ 21:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad to know there is a solution. I knew you would be able to help. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable

The bot INSISTS on using the wrong colour for a title blacklisted page, which according to Template:Edit protected/color legend should be yellow, but any attempt to correct make it come back and attack you. Please fix this. Here is the diff. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Amending a bot-updated page is pointless because when the bot next arrives to update the page, it ignores what is already there and replaces the whole of the content with what it believes to be correct. The effect of this is that any changes by humans are put back to how they were - this is an effective anti-vandalism measure. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The miscoloring is now fixed, the bot should update the table in a few minutes. Anomie⚔ 12:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Timing

Please can AnomieBOT use a longer delay before adding dates to {{fact}} templates? Every time I add one to an article I'm editing, I end up edit conflicting with this bot. :-( Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mike Peel: Do what I do - add a |date= with the same edit. That way, the bot won't need to clean up after you. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
True, I do that when I remember to do so. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
In addition, most dated maintenance templates have been converted to use Module:Unsubst in such a way that substing them will result in a dated transclusion: {{subst:fact}} ⇒ {{Citation needed|date=March 2015}} Anomie⚔ 21:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Citations in astronomical templates

Why is AnomieBOT moving citations out of astronomical templates? The information there (particular distance) is hard to determine and therefore it's important to know which source the information is coming from. -- Elphion (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you didn't provide any links, I can only guess what is happening: AnomieBOT isn't removing any references, just moving the body of the named ref from an instance of the named ref inside a template parameter to a different instance of the named ref that is elsewhere in the article. Anomie⚔ 00:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you're right; the edit involved two refs and I didn't look carefully enough to realize that neither had been deleted. Sorry for the bother. -- Elphion (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Anomie, I'm wondering if this edit is the same situation. If so, you may want to exclude {{reflist}} from templates that the bot rescues citations from. That'd be a mess, otherwise. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

... Yeah, that's no good. Will do momentarily. Anomie⚔ 21:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Addition to User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable without an edit

User talk:Carriearchdale/anti-vandal (an unprotected talk page of a blocked user) was added to the User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable at 2015-03-31 04:29 however the page has not been edited since 22:33, 15 June 2014‎. I can momentarily glimpse the semi-protected edit request header box as the page loads. I assume this is transcluded from somewhere else - but cannot work out where or, more importantly, how to remove it. - Arjayay (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Arjayay: User talk:Carriearchdale/anti-vandal transcludes a lot of pages, most of which are either frequently updated or are fully dynamic. I would go with your theory that the SPER was transcluded from somewhere else. I've WP:NULLEDITed the user talk page, let's see if it falls out of the SPERtable. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Redrose64 I'm afraid that didn't work, the table has updated several times in the hour + since your nul-edit.
I'm a bit confused (nothing new there) - if it is being transcluded, then shouldn't wherever it is transcluded from, also appear on the list?
As the editor was indeffed on 10 July 2014, a simple solution is to delete the talk page, but I don't know if that is "acceptable", or if anyone is still using that page as a "dashboard" ? - Arjayay (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It's the transclusion of {{Admin dashboard|newadmin=yes}} which transcludes {{Admin dashboard/rfarfp|1=}} which transcludes {{Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed|dash=yes}} --Redrose64 (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Arjayay: Fixed with this edit. I should have looked in Category:Non-talk pages requesting an edit to a protected page first. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Redrose64 - Thanks - that did work - I didn't know the Category:Non-talk pages requesting an edit to a protected page page even existed - Arjayay (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Problem?

Hello! Today I created some new articles and I added templates that refers to the Greek Wikpedia because, those articles are translation from there. This bot keeps removing those templates so I' m asking for help. Am I doing something wrong or it's bot's fault? Thanks!Postscriptum123 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Translated page}} goes on the article's talk page, not the article itself. You'll probably find that AnomieBOT added the template to the articles' talk pages at the same time it removed it from the article. Anomie⚔ 16:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok!Thanks!Postscriptum123 (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjectTagger run #3 for women writers

Hi Anomie. We're ready for the next WikiProjectTagger run at WikiProject Women writers. The discussion approving the categories can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers#New categories within the scope of this WikiProject (#3) for the next project banner bot run. The categories we'd like to run are in the collapsed box New categories within the scope of this WikiProject (#3). As before, please copy class from other projects' banners. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Bot started. Anomie⚔ 01:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks to be done already. 131 edits made. Anomie⚔ 22:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

WLAC citation needed tag

Thanks for dating the tag which I added todayRudy2alan 16:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
AnomieBOT is wonderful — Saeed (Talk) 10:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Frozen

As of this message, AnomieBOT has not made any edits in 9 hours. Stickee (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing after noticing ITN did not have a new section added last night. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed this thread at the time, but I did notice the bot was stuck yesterday and killed/restarted its jobs at about 2015-04-20T00:10Z. Anomie⚔ 10:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Bot edit

Hi, I noticed that the bot made this edit, which left the second instance of this reference hanging. I doubt this is that common an occurrence, but perhaps it could be fixed anyway? Thanks, Neøn (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC).

Well, the second instance was already hanging. "name==foo" isn't valid so it was already being ignored. If it's reasonably common that people make that mistake I could add a rule to fix it, but if it's a one-off error it's probably not worth it. Anomie⚔ 13:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Error by Bot

Please take a look at the following edit by your bot: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FMiscellaneous&type=revision&diff=660493194&oldid=660491863

Your bot appears to have misspelled the name of an editor in doing what may have been a template substitution. (I didn't think that that bot signed unsigned posts.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't sign unsigned posts. In this case, it merely substituted an instance of {{unsigned}} placed by someone else. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Yes, the bot replaced {{unsigned|Russel.mo}} with {{subst:unsigned|Russel.mo}}. The bot doesn't check the validity of the template parameters, so the error was on the part of the person who originally added {{unsigned|Russel.mo}} - which according to these edits, was Medeis (talk · contribs). I'm puzzled why they did that, since the "unsigned" post had actually been signed correctly. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
And there is no User:Russel.mo, only User:Russell.mo. Does that mean that User:Medeis misspelled the name? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That's what I meant by "check the validity". If a user feeds incorrect data into a template (in this case, one half of the double "l" was missing), and the template doesn't verify that it's been fed a bad value, it certainly isn't the responsibility of AnomieBOT to verify it. To do so would mean not just that the bot should be programmed with a list of all templates which should be substituted (as it presently is), but also that it should be programmed with a list of valid parameters for each substitutable template, and valid values for those parameters. It's simply not practical. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I apparently inadvertently misspelt the name, but corrected it when I noticed the error. μηδείς (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Should I be concerned, cause I'm kind of -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Russell.mo: I don't think you did anything wrong - it was Medeis (talk · contribs) re-signing one of your posts and getting your name wrong. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks. -- Mr. Prophet (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

SPERTable - no update in 36hrs

The SPERTable has not been updated in 36 hours, while it is usually updates every 5 minutes. Stickee (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, should be fixed now. Anomie⚔ 21:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

CHUUClerk: Addition to error message

Clerk note: The requested username "Moor" is not registered locally, but is reserved for a global account. If you own the global account, please ensure you have included a confirmation link. If you do not own the global account, this may preclude renaming. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Anomie: could we add, before the signature "Requests for usurpation of global usernames with significant attachments on other projects must be made at meta:Steward requests/Username changes."

Unrelated question: In case Legoktm doesn't have time to fix Legobot, how difficult would it be to re-purpose AnomieBOT to clerk CHU/S also? I am also considering a unified page to house both simple and usurpation requests, given the push to move most requests to the interface and steady decline in requests to the separate venues. Do you have the cycles for either of these possible bot requests? –xenotalk 14:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Message adjusted. Are local renames still even possible now that SUL is finally globalized? I thought our local process would have closed down. Anomie⚔ 11:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Local usurp page is being maintained at least until global usurpation policy is made (and probably beyond depending on how restrictive that policy ends up); Simple is being maintained for users who do not have email addresses and can't use the interface and for appeals and other complex filings. Renames are filed locally; done globally. At some future time we may direct users to m:SRUC for complex requests but this writer, at least, is not yet comfortable shuttering local venues. –xenotalk 12:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirection for Nazipenis page

The page Nazipenis used to redirect to Anal Gestapo page which got deleted previously, but it is functioning again. So, we should restore the redirection. Rockunion(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

... What an awful band name. But undeleted, pending the outcome of the AfD anyway. Anomie⚔ 14:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Bug?

Hi. Are you aware of this one? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a bug. {{year}} redirects to {{year needed}}, which should be dated. For that matter, that template should probably be using {{year missing}} instead (if it uses a template at all), which again should be dated. (on second thought, maybe not {{year missing}}; what exactly is that template for?)
To prevent AnomieBOT from dating the embedded template, the template itself should take a date parameter which it passes to the embedded template's |date=, and be added to User:AnomieBOT/Dating rules to tell the bot when and how to date it. {{weather box}} might serve as a decent example. Anomie⚔ 21:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

removal of neutrality dispute

Why does the Bot remove neutrality disputes at the Cultural Marxism page [11]?

I can assure you my dispute is in good faith and I'm trying to work with the other main editor there to resolve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Second Dark (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Second Dark: It didn't. It added the dates that you had omitted: [12]; [13]. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Oops. Misread pages history and confused Bot with the human editor who did remove them. Sorry new. Thanks for helping.Second Dark (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjectTagger run for women scientists

Hi Anomie. WikiProject Women scientists is interested in a WikiProjectTagger run. The list of categories and approval for them are here. We'd like to have the article class auto-assessed. If possible, we'd also like to add |s&a-work-group=yes to the WikiProject Biography banner. Thank you, gobonobo + c 20:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Bot started. Anomie⚔ 15:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
And done. Anomie⚔ 21:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so very much Anomie. gobonobo + c 23:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Recently bot decimated my page;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cocaine_analogues

@ ref # five it says "Cite error: The named reference Singh was invoked but never defined (see the help page)."

But it is defined just the same as every other linked instance of it! The same name in the code and all.

AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)‎ came through and took out all of the citations, and I undid the revision, and now that one won't show right. It was fine before. The strange thing, is, that in the history of the article, it still shows that as having a cite error, when it didn't used to.

Please help fix the trail of destruction wrought by your bot. Nagelfar (talk)

(talk page stalker) Sounds like it's related the the problem at Template talk:Refn#Refn references getting sent to the bottom of the page? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The only edit by AnomieBOT on that page didn't remove anything, it just moved the actual text of one reference from one usage to another. And fixed the error in the process. Anomie⚔ 08:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks, bot. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

As of

I notice the bot is "fixing" calls to {{as of}} (e.g.). It's not the bot's fault but what really needs fixing is the absurd template syntax. {{as of|12 May 2015}} is perfectly readable, {{as of|2015|5|12}} is not. Of course, the place to bring it up is at the template talk page but if consensus is reached to prefer the readable version, how would the bot think about reversing this kind of edit? Jimp 17:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Introduction of Cite errors

Hi. Despite the good work it does, this bot has been creating "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)." on pages and adding those pages to Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting, for example in this edit, by changing "#tag:ref" to "refn" indiscriminately. @Gadget850: you have been doing the same thing with AWB, for example in these three edits. I don't know why these are interpreted as Cite errors, perhaps there is a bug in refn or MediaWiki. My partial manual reverts (leaving alone other changes from "#tag:ref" to "refn") have masked the problem on those three pages.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT does not change {{#tag:ref}} to {{refn}}, nor does the AnomieBOT edit you link show anything of the sort, nor do I see any reference errors in the AnomieBOT edit you link. Personally I don't much see the point of {{refn}} over {{#tag:ref}}, it saves a whole 4 characters. Anomie⚔ 23:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT II - missing TFA templates

Hello, cleaning up some other FAC-problems, I noticed that AnomieBOT II didn't create Template:TFA title/May 27, 2015 on 21 May for article Menominee Tribe v. United States and Template:TFA title/May 31, 2015 on 25 May for O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165. I am not really sure, what those templates do exactly in the great scheme of FAC/TFA processing, but wanted to leave you a note for checking (maybe just a problem with last-minute TFAs or belated updates of the article status?). Would it be OK to create those 2 templates manually in such cases? GermanJoe (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The first wasn't recognized because Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 27, 2015 erroneously has the comma inside of the bolding. The second wasn't recognized because the {{lang}} template confused the bot, and could have been fixed by either moving the template inside the piped link or by moving the bolding inside the template's value. Anomie⚔ 21:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, thank you for looking into those cases. GermanJoe (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) and Adrien D. Pouliot

Hello, your bot has made yesterday a change in the article Adrien D. Pouliot. It moved the template {{translated page}} to the talk page. However, the article is considered unsourced by two users and will probably be deleted. I don't know if it's the bot's fault, the user's or mine, but I still sent a message to the concerned people. Cordially, Ĉiuĵaŭde Discuss 15:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Ĉiuĵaŭde: the template's documentation states that it is to be placed on the talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

MedComClerk issues

I'm the current MedCom Chairperson, we have had a malformed filing:

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/My Edits were removed from the Francis Drake and Nova Albion page

which I think may be blocking the listing of a subsequently filed case on the Requests for Mediation page:

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eurofighter Typhoon 2

Could you advise or fix? If the malformed filing needs to be deleted, I'd ask you to do it (I'm not an administrator) and I'll advise the filer to refile. Please drop a note here if that's needed, as I'm watching this page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Eurofighter Typhoon 2 is that it's in Category:Requests for mediation rejected requests, so the bot added it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected cases. The malformed case shouldn't cause problems for any other cases, although someone should probably either fix it or delete it anyway; fixing it should be as simple as adding }} at the end. Anomie⚔ 11:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian State Academy of Arts

  • Hi.

Yesterday I open page Ukrainian State Academy of Arts with redirect to non-opened page The National Academy of Fine Arts and Architecture. I created it only today. Sorry, work tightened, the bot had to come first. Can I open redirect page again? — Elena Elk 12:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if the target page is created you are free to recreate a redirect that was deleted because the target page did not exist at the time. In this case, I undeleted your original redirect for you. Anomie⚔ 12:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! — Elena Elk 01:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable stuck (?)

User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable usually updates several times an hour. Its last updates were 20.50, 21.03, 21.40, 21,45 and 21.50 yesterday - 14.5 hours ago.
There are answered requests still included in the table, so there are changes to update - even if there are no new requests - which is extremely unlikely.
The bot/table appears to be stuck - can it be kick-started? Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Labs is currently having an outage (email); once it's back up I'll probably have to restart several of the tasks. Anomie⚔ 12:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Arjayay: If you suspect that the table is not updating, it has a link at the top semi-protected edit requests which goes to the category page, which should always be up to date. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Redrose64 Thanks - I didn't realize that was a link (it is so dark blue it is almost black), nor that the category could contain different entries to the list. There are currently 44 in the category and 34 on the list - more work to do. - Arjayay (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The Cultural Competency Organizational Assessment-360

Has the notability issue now been fixed? CHinds89 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)CHinds89

Bibhuti Bhushan Nayak

Hey, AnomieBot (talk · contribs), you just tagged the article "Bibhuti Bhushan Nayak Singh" as non-notable, non-neutral and orphan. Thanks for your tireless work and not outrightly deleting the page. Ill soon update the article to be neutral and non-orphaned, however I believe the bot is mistaken in believeing that the subject of the article, is non-notable. Please elaborate :)
Cheers.

Space.mountain9 (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Space.mountain9: First, this is the user page of AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) (note capitalisation), not AnomieBot. Second, AnomieBOT (which is a bot, not a human), didn't tag the page for anything - it dated some tags that were added by PRehse (talk · contribs) in these edits. Third, AnomieBOT doesn't delete pages - it can't, because it's not an administrator. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Now i see it. Thanks and sorry. Just newbie THings. Cheers Space.mountain9 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hands off construction please (bot, not you!)

Kindly call your little rottweiler bot off of List of music software while under construction. Human editors know (and respect) that wiki's policy is to give editors and creators time to get an article going via under construction, but this bot is vandalizing the article while it's just being written! You need to rewrite its code so it respects the under construction protocol. It's slam on links misses that this is a list and some tech topics are so new that links can only be external, however, they are minimal proportionately even at this early stage of creation. Thanks! Pdecalculus (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

All AnomieBOT did was date a maintenance tag, no harm there. Calm down. Dating a maintenance tag is not vandalism. There are No angry Mastodons. Weegeerunner (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Perfectly calm, and in fact was trying a lame attempt at humor, it is just inappropriate and rude to start tagging articles in the middle of their creation, thanks.Pdecalculus (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
An admin suggested I simply move the body links to references and the bot will back off, so I'll do that. THAT is helpful advice rather than just quoting rules or talking down to editors or minimizing their questions.Pdecalculus (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Done, see article's talk page, I removed all the external links and made the notable ones references instead, per the link policy.Pdecalculus (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Weegee, while I have you, is it possible/permissible to link to a category in an article? I'm trying to do so in the lead in paragraph to exclude devices and instruments (ie selection criteria) with embedded software, but it doesn't work to just bracket the categories (see last sentence of the intro para). Thanks. Pdecalculus (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Put a colon before the category if you want to link to it (e.g. [[:Category:Articles]]). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC) (talk page watcher)
Very cool, thanks! If more folks were like you I guarantee there would be more women editors on wiki like me, which I guess is an objective! Pdecalculus (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pdecalculus: I think you are misunderstanding. No bot tagged your article. The {{LinkFarm}} tag was added by an anonymous IP editor in this edit. All the bot did was add a date to the tag. However, for future reference, if you're in the middle of creating an article and don't want it tagged, it might be better to do so either in the Draft: namespace or as a userspace draft. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC) (talk page watcher)
Wow, thanks so much for explaining! I don't mind tags at all, I just like explanations of why on the article talk so I can correct or undo, depending on validity of challenge. In this case I read a bunch of stuff about link farms, and moved the links to references. I also now understand what this bot actually did, thanks again! Wish I could send you a star but I guess only admins do that. --Jeanie @ Pdecalculus (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pdecalculus: Anybody can send a barnstar. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much, sent them a peacemaker one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdecalculus (talk • contribs) 19:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Check for Solapur

Can you please check for any corrections possible by you in Solapur article? Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The bot will automatically do so if it falls under the criteria for any of its tasks, no need to post here. Anomie⚔ 11:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Vietnam Land Reform Tags

Any particular rationale behing removing the tags in the Vietnam LR article. I mean the article itself is terrible hodgepodge of questionable assertions and outright misrepresentations of sources. The topic is not well known and all claims, especially extreme and partisan-sounding ones, must be sourced properly. Of course the article looks like crap with those tags, but its not great to begin with and we should not pretend otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccisamsclub (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

All glory to the AnomieBOT

Just wanted to post my thanks and appreciation, AnomieBOT just saved me a ton of very tedious work. Truly a useful tool/service! Fyddlestix (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Translated pages statistics

Dear Anomie,

I ask you, because your bot is moving the {{translated page}} templates. For statistical purpose I would like to know, how many articles from which foreign languages were translated into English. Is it possible to gather all usages of this template?--Kopiersperre (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Kopiersperre: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Translated page. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
How can I export this list?--Kopiersperre (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
I hardly ever give out barnstars, but I think it's time you were recognized for your hard work. Cheers. —cyberpowerChat:Online 18:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
This star is for both youy and the bot.—cyberpowerChat:Online 18:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Anomie⚔ 19:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
It's a really great bot, and of course the guy behind, often caught my laziness. :-) Ign christian (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help... Uaearthub (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for your help in making the page better, fegarding the Notability of Casco, all the sources i found was in Dutch, can i cite that? and frieze and E-fux is one of the major art magazine in the world.

about the name, this is how i find other artists on wiki referring to it. Uaearthub (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnomieBOT/Archive_7&oldid=1090482090"