User talk:DumbBOT/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bugs

Please report bugs in this section. I am interested in any possible mistake you see, e.g., the bot truncating a summary of WP:PRODSUM, reporting a wrong date, etc. Some may be unfixable, some may not be worth fixing, but I'd like to know they exist anyway. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 19:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1. DumbBOT is choking on something today; and thus failing to parse many articles with proper prod tags. Salad Days 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)\

   Well, it looks fine now. I was referring to this[1] edit. Salad Days 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for reporting. The script was probably unable to completely load the pages, so it could not detect the prod tag at all for these articles. I have made some changes so that it shouldn't happen often in the future. Tizio 14:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Gah! It's gone haywire and is eating the villagers again![2] Salad Days 01:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

   At least, that was a different bug :-) This one should be fixed as well (an article had "dated prod" within the "concern" argument of "dated prod", thus making the bot page marked prod). Please report again if you see other strange things the bots does. Tizio 13:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

   No problem. Keep up the good work! Salad Days 19:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Improper cross-linking of AfD entry to dated AfD log. For example [3] and [4] just have a literal View AFD link, not the includeonly/noinclude set for View AFD/View Log. DMacks 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for reporting. At some point, I decided not to keep track of the changes to the afd2 template, and just go for something reasonably close to the real thing. Reading the last diff you provided, I noticed that emulating afd2 was quite straightforward after all... Let's see if the bot works (I will check the incomplete noms tomorrow). Tizio 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

4. In the most current revision of prodsum, all articles failed to be parsed for some reason, probably because of someone horribly mangling their prod code.[5] Salad Days 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

   That was a bug in my software. I fixed that yesterday after reading your report. Thanks, and keep reporting problems, as I am not looking at the result page regularly these days. Tizio 12:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

5. There are many transwikied articles in the failed to parse section.[6] Salad Days 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, the "dated transwiki" template is not parsed at all. I'm not so sure why the template exists, since transwikied articles should be speedied rather than prod'ed. Tizio 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, there was a very easy way to solve this problem: I made the bot convert all "dated transwiki" into "dated prod" with a reason of "transwikied", and everything seems fine now! Tizio 11:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

6. The bot isn't providing correct oldid's for the Images with unknown source categories. This isn't an urgent bug at all because it's only allowing the gallery view which isn't anything special. The bot is linking to oldid's which are way off like [7] and [8] [9] [10] [11] I think it's something to do with the date because the oldid on December 1 is "1", on Dec 2 it's "2" etc. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for pointing this out. I changed the parameters of the subcategory starters so to allow for links to the previous and next category, for example. You are indeed right that the parameter "5" was now used for the day (instead of the oldis). It should be fixed now (I'm just running the script again). Tizio 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

7. Bot edit erased most of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 5. Spacepotato (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

   Due to the future removal of query.php from mediawiki, I am trying to port all my scripts to its replacemente api.php. This bug was due to the different formats of the two, so that the bot didn't correctly realize that page already existed. Thanks for reporting; I really need some help in checking if something is gone bad in the change. Tizio 15:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

8. The "date mismatch" part of the PRODSUM page isn't working properly and hasn't been for a couple of days now. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

   For some reason, I got duplicate entries when retrieving the category using API (instead of the old query). Maybe there is a bug somewhere, but I have implemented a quick fix in the meantime. Tizio 15:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Use this section for general comments. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 19:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my AfD! I had a good laugh when I saw it was fixed by DUMBbot, because that's what I am. Eclectek ^{C T} 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

DumbBOT

Hey, i think DumbBOT is really cool! How did you make it??? Please answer! It will be great to have my own bot wandering around on Wikipedia creating and correcting and editing articles! ETC.

CoolChris 10:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Some details are in WP:BOT. Essentially, your bot can either just load the various pages and parse them, or use a dedicated interface where data is returned as XML or another easy-to-parse form. Most people use the PyWikipedia framework (a link to it is in WP:BOT), but you need to know the python programming language to use it. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 12:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks DumbBOT

I messed up whilst nominating AfD but fortunately a friendly little bot was on hand to fix the problem before anybody shouted at me. Cheers!--Edchilvers 19:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes thanks for helping me out when I messed up nominating an AfD. Debaser23 19:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Importance listing gone haywire

See User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedImportance. —Centrx→talk • 22:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a time-sorted listing of Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance; it only lists articles in that category, not in the sub-categories. An easy solution is to create Category:All Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance and add it to all relevant templates. I'll take a look at this. Tizio 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, btw. Do you think there is still use of this listing? Contrary to prod, the subcategory system might be sufficient for these kind of articles. Tizio 22:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this is not useful as it is now. —Centrx→talk • 04:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

THanks

For completing the AfD. --BozMo talk 17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

duplication

Hi,

I added a "copyvio" statement to Warrawong Sanctuary on Dec 21, 2006 at 12:52, and in the same minute added an entry to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 December 21/Articles, see this edit.

Your bot added an entry for the same copyvio at 13.44, 52 minutes later. Not quite a problem, but also not quite as it should be.

Aleph-4 11:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting: I am indeed interested in any kind of information that I can use to fix the bot. This can't be a problem with the interval between tagging and listing, because you did in less than a minute while the bot waits five minutes before loading the category and the copyvio pages. Too bad I didn't connect this morning: the bot has already had another run and overwrote the temp files. Tizio 15:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I got what the problem was, and implemented a temp fix. Thanks again for reporting (this time, the bot really screwed up). Tizio 16:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, a related question. Since the bot can post at "Wikipedia:Copyright problems/date-X" reliably, is it ok for me to intentionally omit doing that after tagging copyvio at an article, and just let the bot do the work? Cool bot.--Vsion 18:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

One problem I see is that the author or a vandal may remove the copyvio notice before the bot had the time to add it to the daily page (the bot only runs once a day). Unfortunately, the software does not store the history of category membership, to there is no easy way to list articles that have been at some point part of the "possible copyvio" category. Tizio 17:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a automated to all bot operators

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated message to bot owners

As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:

Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.

Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 02:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris

Your bot seemed to have removed the sprotected2 from the article and I do believe it was meant to be there as well as the discussion page. Can you please re-instate it so that we don't have further issues with wild editing, until someone from the arbitration committee/or Admin familiar with the problems removes it? Thank you in advance. TalkAbout 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That article was unprotected already; the bot merely removed a template from it; that template was telling people that the page was protected, while in fact it wasn't. I don't think the decision of the ArbCom was that of having a fake template on the page, but if you really believe it was, well, you can still add it back to the article.

I gave a glance at the article history, and in particular to its protection log, and unprotection appears to be intentional. In particular, Thatcher131 protected the article on Jan 24 with an expiration of 1 month, which means it expired on Feb 24. Tizio 09:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what I'm doing here, but I feel I should correct your usage of intentional. Intentional refers to an action by another, if an administrator removed the protection then it was intentionally removed. What happened in this instance is it just expired, there was no action taken by an administrator or other and therefore it was simply removed. People can set expiration dates for things without ever actually expecting that date to come by and merly petition for it's reinstation.

Basically, even though my own grammar is atrocious, I feel I should correct other people's grammar in the most smart assy way possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.243.202 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Bermuda Triangle

The purpose of a lock on a page is to protect it from vandalism. Guess what happened immediately following your removal of the lock. Carajou 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't unprotect that page [12] Tizio 09:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The tag was removed by Dumbot, as stated in the history section. The problem with a lot of articles here is that they attract the attention of a lot of vandals, and these clowns started appearing as soon as the lock was removed...kinda like buzzards to the kill, if you know what I mean. Carajou 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is little subtlelty in the way pages are protected in Wikipedia and other wikis using the same software. You don't protect a page by adding {{protect}} or a similar template to it; these are just colored boxes with something written on them, they do not affect whether a page can be edited. Protection is done via a form such as [{{fullurl:User_talk:DumbBOT}}] (you should be able to see the form even if you are not an admin, you just can't then submit it). After protecting a page, administrators are supposed to add a protection template to signal that the page is protected.

What happened in this case is that an expiring protection was used; protection expired automatically a week afterward (the expiration date can be set at will when protecting); at that time, noone was around to remove the pastel box. This is why the bot has this function: the page has a template on it indicating it was protected, while in fact it wasn't.

I believe it is generally agreed that non-protected pages shouldn't have protection templates on them. I'm saying this because you can place the {{protect}} template (the "lock" image) back to the article yourself if you want, but I believe you shouldn't.

Actually, this issue is raising here quite often, so I should probably write a Q&A sometimes, so that hopefully nobody will ask an Hindi god to punish the bot again 8-0 [13] Tizio 13:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, DumbBOT, for removing protection notices from unprotected page. You are a good bot. --Yamla 15:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dear DumbBOT :-) for helping me out--Lioness of God — Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Star

The Blast of Searing Hot Resin Barnstar Thanks for all your hard work, DumbBOT! Salad Days 02:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (that image is hypnotic, but I guess that's not a problem for a bot) Tizio 09:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but is it hypnotic supersonic? Salad Days 02:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can you get your bot to remove Template:pp-semi-protected from non-protected pages as well? Thanks, VegaDark 19:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What happended to the semiprotection templates lately? It seems that all of them have been redirected to a 'pp-' version... Tizio 11:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of pages

Hi, Could you make sure your bot doesn't pass over either WP:UTM, WP:UW or their subpages please. It removed some protection templates from template detail pages. Many thanks. ^Khukri 16:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You probably mean this one: [14]. I have added some markers to avoid the bot removing those again. Do you really need that page? Tizio 16:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you asked me I say no, but there are alot of editors around that want to hang on to the old warning system, and their pages. So for now were going to leave them and just let them fester hidden in a corner somewhere until we can get rid of them with mimimum fuss. Cheers ^Khukri 16:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Malfunction

See this; it removed a protected template from an article on the basis that it wasn't protected; it was. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, but I think this is not completely fixable. The bot works in two phases: first, it checks which pages have the protection templates on it while not protected; second, it removes the protection templates from all these pages. In this particular case, it seems that the page was protected just in between :-( This could be fixed by checking protection again before submitting (which is what I intend to do), but the bot could still do everything in the between the addition of the protection template and the protection itself. Another solution, could be to first protect pages and then adding the protection templates on them. Tizio 17:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You should have mentioned you blocked the bot. I lost 1/2 hour trying to get why the bot wasn't submitting :-) (my fault, actually: I didn't check the result page.) Tizio 17:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right — I should have mentioned that I'd stopped it. As the page History shows, I protected before I added the template (I always do) — so I'm not sure that your explanation goes through. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are an exception (most people first protect and then add the template). However, with the change I mentioned above (the bot now checks protection right before submitting), the risk of that happening again is now quite small. There is still a small probability that protection gets done after that check but before submission.

This function is currently disabled, but bot has other functions (e.g., updating WP:PRODSUM). Please unblock; we can continue this discussion tomorrow, possibly at WP:RFBA. Tizio 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"I guess you are an exception (most people first protect and then add the template)" — but that's what I said that I do...

OK, I'll unblock for now; perhaps we can continue the discussion later, though, because I think that the Bot needs to be tweaked. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I misready your post, sorry. I went to the page history, and it looked like the software registered the changed in the reverse order (no idea why, but I guess this is possible). For further confirmation, I checked the page history on api.php [15], which shows timestamps up to seconds, and these are the last 5 edits to that page:

• user="Mel Etitis" minor="" timestamp="2007-04-12T16:51:25Z" comment="Reverted edits by DumbBOT (talk) to last version by Mel Etitis"
• user="DumbBOT" timestamp="2007-04-12T11:25:30Z" comment="removing a protection template from a non-protected page"
• user="Mel Etitis" minor="" timestamp="2007-04-12T11:23:52Z" comment="Protected User talk:85.89.34.188: persistent page blanking by blocked user [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC))"
• user="Mel Etitis" timestamp="2007-04-12T11:23:28Z" comment="/* April 2007 */ extension; {{sprotection}}"
• user="Mel Etitis" minor="" timestamp="2007-04-12T11:21:07Z" comment="Reverted edits by 85.89.34.188 (talk) to last version by Mel Etitis"

According to this log, the template was added at "11:23:28", while protection was done at "11:23:52". Again, I don't know why the software performed these actions in the opposite order.

My assumption is that the bot loaded the protection status in between. This is the first time I got a real bug report (as opposite to the "why did you unprotect" complaints) over hundreds of template removal. Since the bot now checks protection again before submitting the changed page, such problems should essentially be solved. Tizio 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is very peculiar; when I checked the page history before, it confirmed that I protected then added the template; now it's saying that I added the template then protected. I didn't know that that sort of thing was possible. I might raise it at the technical Village Pump. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

For this particular issue, I am more of the opinion you misread the history, but that's just my opinion. I have not run the remove-protection-template so far, but I'd like to start it again at some point. Since the bot is approved for the task, I believe you need to discuss the issue at WT:RFBA if you want this function to be shut down indefinitely. Tizio 18:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you didn't respond, I guess that you have no other objection to this function being started again. Tizio 11:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood; I thought that you'd started it up again. Yes, if it's been tweaked so as not to do the same, then fine. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

B1029

Why did you remove my protection template? --B1029REPLY

The page User talk:B1029 wasn't protected. The template is for alerting about pages that are protected. See WP:PROTECT for details. Tizio 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Help

Hi please let me know how the biographical articles of Aashish Khan and Bahadur Khan can be protected from vandalising. Some silly people are trying to write misinformation on those pages every now and then. And these pages should be protected. If you can, please do the needful to protect those two pages. Best, Sarodiya 14:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFDSUM

It might be useful to provide a link to WP:AFDSUM in the expository text at the top of the page. 132.205.44.134 22:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

how do you do it

How do you tell when a tagged page is unprotected? I tried to find a way to do it, but its not in query.php or in the export format. I'm curious. My overall plan is to make a list of protected pages based on the date they were protected. CMummert · talk 03:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You can now use Special:Protectedpages for this. The bot doesn't use it because it works in the other way around: it first gets the pages where a protection template is embedded, and then checks which ones are protected; the latter is done via "query.php?what=permissions&prcanmove"; by getting this query with or without cookies, I get which pages are protected or semiprotected. I asked at meta:Talk:API for the permissions attribute of the meta:Page table, but the developer appears at this time to be mostly inactive. Tizio 11:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I know about Special:Protectedpages, but unfortunately there isn't any way I know of to get an XML export of its list. I may have to resort to screen scraping. CMummert · talk 13:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I think your answer to question 5 at the top of this page is quite accommodating; I can't see any reason why a protection template should be left on an unprotected page, except when the template is there just to demonstrate what the template message looks like. CMummert · talk 19:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that a bot shouldn't edit war with a human, which would happen if I don't say how to avoid the bot removing a template. If someone insists in deliberately putting a protection template on a non-protected page, another human rather than a bot should evaluate the motivations of that and decide. Tizio 12:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You may already know this, but api.php now has the ability to directly query both edit and move protection of pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot runs at 15:50

Under Bot description, it says:

... 3. The prod cat creation is done at It runs at 15:50 every day, local time

Which local time would that be? (There also appears to be a sentence structure problem.) —EncMstr 19:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the sentence, thanks. That's the time on my computer :-) whatever that is. I think it is currently 1 hour ahead of UTC. I never bothered to put that in sync with Wikipedia time, as the precise time of creation is not particularly important IMO. Tizio 21:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran International Exhibitions Company incomplete?

The bot said the nomination was incomplete, but I thought I'd done all 3 steps [16] [17] [18]. Could someone please tell me what I missed (if anything)? Alternatively, if the listing was fine, what's up with the bot? Petros471 12:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Feminism

Hi. Your bot reverted the protection that I gave to this article saying "(removing a protection template from a non-protected page)". Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems like pretty circular reasoning. This article should qualify for protection under Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection i.e. "Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism". You may notice that the article has been vandalize quite a few times since you reverted my protection only a few days ago. Thanks. --Cdogsimmons 17:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that article was subject to vandalism some days ago, but is not so much right now (I see only one instance for today). If vandalism increases, you can ask for protection at any time at Wikipedia:Requests for protection. See Q&A above for more information about what the bot does (and doesn't). Tizio 18:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lazy days

Your recent edit to Lazy Days (RV dealer) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 11:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol :-) The problem is fixed, afaict. Tizio 12:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning for editing Animal Crackers (1930 comic strip) (diff). The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. // MartinBot 12:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That edit was correct, so I have reverted. I guess removing an afd tag is considered vandalism, so I'll use my admin account next time. Tizio 12:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I believe the Fifi Le Fume must have protection. Some anonymous contributors have been re-adding a contradictory statement which should not be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.126.41 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 2 June 2007

I don't see that much vandalism there. Protection is not justified. See WP:PROTECT for details. Tizio 12:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

subcategory creation

DumbBOT hasn't created new subcategories of Category:Images needing editor assistance at upload today or yesterday, according to Special:Contributions/DumbBOT

It created several subcategroies at 12:28, 8 June 2007, but none more recently, except for prod subcategories. --Eastmain 04:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I's still testing this function, so the bot currently do these creation manually (that is, when I decide to run the bot). Since everything is fine, I'll switch to scheduled mode soon. Tizio 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Page protection query

I dont know if you read Singpost, but in the newest edition a new feature was explained that might be useful to your bot. r23052 while not yet live on en.Wikipedia tells you page protection status. That might help make your bot faster. — Shinhan < talk > 07:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Yes, that's certainly useful, as it allows getting the protection level without checking twice (once logged and once unlogged) what the user can do. This was in fact a feature I myself requested some time ago. Tizio 11:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Little help on Commons?

Do you think DumbBOT could create the Unknown categories (it's the "no source" and "no license" categories here all rolled up into one) each day? We've been doing it manually, and I just created 16 days but a bot should do this work. If you don't have an account (or bot account) on Commons you'll have to request the bot flag there, though I doubt this would be controversial at all (see commons:Commons:Administrators, no, you're not RFA'ing, but we do bot requests at the same place). It's very simple what we want on each page, but it still needs to get done, and by a bot all the better. See commons:Category:Unknown as of 16 July 2007 for an example. Thanks. MECU≈talk 13:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly DumbBOT could do this. That would however require some small changes to the bot, and I am busy at the moment. I hope to have the request filled and a test version working by the end of the week. Tizio 12:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible bug re incomplete AfD

See the situation described by Paxse at my talk page. What ought I to do? Daniel Case 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Automatically adding protection templates

There was a little talk at Talk:Intelligent design#Semi-protection about how it would be convenient if there were a bot or something that made sure any protected pages got a template added (if a bot doing this, the small version would probably be best). I remembered that your bot was set to remove them from unprotected pages, so I figured I'd ask you if you'd considered programming this option in as well, and if you'd like to do it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This sounds a good idea indeed. I don't know if I'd have time in the close future, however. Why don't you ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests instead? It may be worth mentioning that Template:Sprotected2 does not require specifying a reason for protecting (other protection templates do, so they cannot be added by a bot). Tizio 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Usenet

I do not understand your actions. Please explain what you were trying to do. To put this in context, a user(s) has been persistently ading a useless link, and somebody semiprotected the page to stop it. Greglocock 12:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Hi, DumBot. I am speaking smoothly so that I do not sound harsh like a mistake I have made by communicating with the users Stig Morten 93, Erechtheus, CABAL, and Durin. I just want to tell you...ummm...well...I want to fool vandals into thinking that I am not only Vandal Proof (which I really am) but hat my page is semi-protected (which it is not). So please no more deleting that part because I want to fool vandals. Thank for your attention. Have a Good Day.---Angel David, ?!?, 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of protection template

Sorry about that. I got a little ahead of myself there. Beemer69 10:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Tizio 10:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oi!

DUMB BOT! What have you done?! You have removed protection from user talk:86.151.141.201's user page but 86.151.141.201 did not give permission to remove protection! For that you are blocked! Thank you!86.130.77.53 17:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) Tizio 14:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I Wish

Are You Can Removing a Protection Template from Page The Backstreet Boys ? Please 8 August 2007 (UTC) .

Why? Tizio 14:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

According to National Liberation War of Macedonia

Please, because of permament vandalism of this article from anonimous users it needs to be transformed in semiprotected! Jingby 15:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I see this page has been vandalized yesterday, but it does not seem under heavy vandlism today. Please also note that you didn't protect it neither the bot unprotected it (see User:DumbBOT/Protection for details). Should vandalism resurface, ask at WP:RPP to have the page (semi)protected. Tizio 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unszubstituted PROD tags

I think this bot should, if it finds a page with an unsubstituted {{prod}} tag, replace it with a properly dated {{dated prod}} tag based on the PROD time. Same applies to {{Prod-nn}}, where the reason is given automaticly by the substitution. Od Mishehu 07:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I indeed at some point considered this function, but I then found out that the number of unsubst'ed prods is generally quite low (I think this is because of the big red warning and also because prod is generally not used by novice users). Since such a function might be useful, however, you may consider asking for someone else to implement it at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Tizio 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Replaceable fair use images

When creating the daily sub-category, please could you add __NOGALLERY__ to the page, as we are displaying dozens of thumbnails of non-free media. - Papa November 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. You can make further changes by yourself by modifying commons:Template:Unknown subcategory starter; you may also want to add it to your watchlist. Tizio 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The templates are actually those listed in User:DumbBOT/CatCreate. I added the tag to some, but there is apparently an extemption. Tizio 16:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people, can't imagine why :), object to having galleries. See User_talk:ST47#Nogallery. Is it possible for the bot include on every daily category a prominent link to a prior revision that features galleries? Normally that's easy, but with this I don't know how or if it is possible. Garion96 (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's easy for the current script to create a first revision of the category with the gallery, and a second revision without it (with the nogallery tag). I would however need to perform some changes to have a direct link to the previous version (rather than to the history). In any case, I cannot make these changes this or next week. Tizio 09:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No hurry of course, I am already glad that it is possible. I like galleries :) Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have done this for Category:Images with unknown source as of 27 August 2007 and following cats. I'll let the script run this way for this single page for now, to see if everything work fine and nobody opposes. If somebody objects, there is another possibility: create only the nogallery version, and include the following link in it [19] You need to have "preview on first edit" set in your preference (this is the default, I think) or otherwise you need to press "preview" to see the gallery Tizio 14:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Hope to see it soon in the other speedy image categories. I can't imagine why anyone would object, after all, it's only a link. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PRODSUM broken?

Is PRODSUM broken? The last entry is from August 20. 70.55.87.43 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither DumbBot, nor the operator of the Bot (Tizio, has made any contribs since then. It may be a problem there. Od Mishehu 09:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the computer where the bot runs appears to be crashed, and it seems I cannot bring it up till next week. This of course also includes all its other functions such as category creation, etc. Tizio 10:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, patrol the daily categories here, as they seem to be working at least in part: Category:Proposed deletion. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominations completed

Just looking for a clarification on this edit. It looks like the bot's edits were duplicates of the originals but contained less information (i.e., no URL). - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. The copyright listing page wasn't linked from Wikipedia:Copyright problems so the bot didn't realize the pages were already listed. Tizio 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Monster Manual V

Not sure if this is a bug; apologies if it isn't. I can't see why DumbBOT created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Manual V; while it's at AfD, it's (as far as I can tell) been properly included in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Manual IV. Cheers --Pak21 16:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For some reason (but I guess it's been this way for a while), Monster Manual V seems to link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Manual V, as shown by Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monster_Manual_V. I don't known what the problem is, but it surely deserves a further investigation. Thanks for reporting!!!Tizio 17:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• This may have fixed the problem. I'll probably submit a bug anyway. Tizio 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch. It would have taken me a while to find that! Cheers --Pak21 07:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Big thanks

Thanks for completing the OffTopic.com AFD. I had somehow forgotten to do step three, I don't know how, but now I know why there was virtually no comments until DumbBOT came in and completed it. hbdragon88 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

About Q&A

One comment on your FAQ - in A2. Having a protection template on a page does imply protection; it just does so falsely. I would say "A protection template is a colored box or a small lock image at the top of the article. Placing one of these templates on a page does not actually protect it; protection and unprotection can only be done by administrators, via a form like ...." Keep up the good work! --Russ (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed that answer. Tizio 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

DumbBOT and the copypaste tag

Hi - as one of the people struggling to dig out the avalanche at Wikipedia:Copyright problems... would it be possible for DumbBOT to skip over the instances of {{copypaste}} where there is no URL provided, and pick up the URL if there is one?

It seems that several editors use the form without an URL when they think something is a copypaste, but don't know the source, and don't feel confident enough to file a report on it. Clearing these out of the list takes quite a bit of work, sometimes. And for the cases where an URL is provided, it would be nice if DumbBOT found it.

Thanks for the botwork! - I'm currently trying to dig out Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 26/Articles, where DumbBOT provided us with an embarassment of riches.... but in general, I'm VERY happy that the bot's doing this job! --Alvestrand 11:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently, Template:Copypaste no longer contains [[Category:Possible copyright violations]] so, for the moment, the bot won't "complete" these noms. An easy way to do what you are asking is to make the template add the article to the category only if a parameter is provided. I'll work on that. Tizio 15:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete?

Was the bot detecting incomplete copyvio noms correctly here? It appears to me to have duplicated already completed nominations. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Zorglbot has been a little late in adding the new subpage today [20], so DumbBOT didn't get the list of articles listed today. I'll fix this anyway. Tizio 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see, no problem. I didn't know how DumbBOT worked and worried it might be malfunctioning. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFD Sub-pages

Your bot is incorrectly re-adding completed WP:RFD sub-pages. I removed the 06-Dec page as all debates have been closed and it's past the current date. Your bot re-added it. Can you please fix it so it correctly adds only the current day? Thanks. -- JLaTondre 01:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And it was relisted again [21]. Would be great if we can fix this.. WjBscribe 02:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I never realized that all rfd discussions for a day could be closed just the day after. I modified the bot so that it only tries to add the subpage for the same day. The bot adding the same subpage again is a feature, not a drawback ;-). Really, the idea was that if the bot (for some reason) could not add the subpage on 00:12, it tries again on 01:12. Tizio 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes no redirects are nominated for deletion on a given day and sometimes the nominations are speedy deleted leading to an early close. Thanks for sorting it :-) ... WjBscribe 15:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for handling it so quickly. The dual attempts for the current day make sense. -- JLaTondre 02:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

DumbBOT seems not to be running

As far as I can tell, the last edits made by DumbBOT were made on the 7th at 19:25' approximately 2 1/2 days ago. What's happenning? Od Mishehu 07:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the bot has always been up, but a network/gateway/firewall failure prevented it from connecting to wikipedia. These failures always happen on Friday evenings... Tizio 13:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Disputed non-free images

Can you create the daily subcategories of Category:Disputed non-free images? Thanks! :) --Ajm⁸¹ 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tizio 16:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

DumbBOT question on incomplete AfD listings

I'm not sure if this [22] is a problem. I used TW to submit an AFD, but it appears TW searches for that particular comment and places AFDs below it. But since DumbBOT edited the listings in the wrong place, it appears that things are getting out of chronological order. Yngvarr 13:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a blank line between __TOC__ and the comment. I do not rely on comments but place the listing two lines after TOC. Tizio 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Salted pages showing in Google search

Hi DumbBOT/Tizio, I was just checking Google for defamation of a named individual that has been frequently posted to Wikipedia over the past year (resulting in numerous deleted revisions and courtesy blankings), and the only occurrences were a number of titles showing from this edit by your bot. Your subpage was number 3 in the Google rankings. This is one of the reasons we got rid of the old protected deleted pages, and I consider this quite problematic. Do you have any suggestions? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, I should have thought before posting, protected titles are always going to be uncategorised. Can you exclude them from the listing. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, I just blank the page right after it is updated. Tizio 16:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dumbot Error

This bot removed protection tag from List of massacres despite protection remaining in force. Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the history, protection expired on 04:23, January 11, 2008 and bot removed template at 16:39, 11 January 2008. Tizio 12:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears you are right. My congrats to the Bot! Sarah777 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

False positive?

Apparently DumbBot marked the lyrics of South Garland High School's alma mater as a copyvio ... I was under the impression that lyrics are fair use. Blueboy96 02:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot didn't flag the lyrics as copyvio, it just reported in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 January 19/Articles that a section of South Garland High School was tagged as a copyvio by someone else. In general, lyrics are copyrighted, and fair use isn't a clear-cut issue; for example, fair use can be claimed for commentary or criticism on the work under copyright, but in this case the article only contains the lyrics without any comment on it. If the lyrics date before 1922, it is in the public domain, I believe. See Wikipedia:Fair use for details.Tizio 12:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't DumbBOT blank pages when tagging with {{copyvio}}?

Per the instructions at WP:CV, the page is supposed to be blanked when tagging with {{copyvio}} but left intact when tagging for speedy deletion. It appears however, that DumbBOT tags and includes the appropriate external link but doesn't blank the page. Is there a reason this Bot is doing things differently?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding {{copyvio}} isn't one of the functions of DumbBOT. At least, I never programmed it to do so, and unless the bot has developed a mind on its own, it is not performing this function. What it does is to link pages where {{copyvio}} is already present from WP:CP. Tizio 12:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops! My bad. I noticed the nominations were completed by DumbBOT and thought the Bot was actually doing the tagging (the idea that a Bot may be is mentioned at WP:CV and maybe some others are. Blanking pages tagged with {{copyvio}} sounds like a job for a Bot, any chance this Bot would take that on? Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And you may want to take a look at the conversation going on at WT:CP (with some at Template talk:Copyvio as well. It relates to whether the template could be substituted if we wanted to (to eliminate Special:Shortpages reports, or whether that would negatively affect DumbBOT's performance and {{subst:longcomment}} should be manually added.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but at the moment I don't have time for developing a new function for the bot. Thanks also for pointing to that discussion; I'll check how that could affect the bot. Tizio 18:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The new version of the {{copyvio}} template has been put into place. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reword RfD header text

Presently, DumbBOT puts the text, "This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on ..." at the top of each WP:RfD log page. Since not all RfDs are for deletion, I'd like to suggest the change "proposed for deletion or other action". Alternatively, the text could be dropped altogether, since it's kind of redundant with the date heading anyway.

I'm assuming the text is hardcoded into DumbBOT since I can't find a template that contains it.--Father Goose (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The text each subpage is started with is in Template:RfD subpage starter. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Tizio 12:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PROD summary

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#PRODSUM failure. FYI. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

is prodsum broken? the last update is from Wed 19 Mar 2008. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed now. Details on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#PRODSUM failure. Thanks for reporting. Tizio 11:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Different edit summary

Might you switch to the slightly different summary, such as “removing a protection obsolete template from a non-protected page”?

1. This would reduce the receipt of messages that mistake you for actually unprotecting the page.
2. This would not alert the more aggressive vandals that a page is no longer protected.

Anyway, tha's my story, an' I'm stickin' to it! —SlamDiego_←T 01:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank for the suggestion, but I think I will leave the summary as is. The problem with the summary you are proposing is that is is slightly inaccurate. The bot does not only remove protection templates that are no longer valid; it also removes protection templates that have never been valid (some people add protection templates to their favourite pages in the hope that that actually protect those pages). Tizio 11:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox Crime (125.60.241.122, Starfm1027)

This article, Fox Crime has been copied from other articles (Ex. Yasmien Kurdi; JC De Vera) by 125.60.241.122 and Starfm1027 many times and it refers as vandalism. Please lock it as Semi-Protected page. -- 01:42, April 10, 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, vandalism seems to have ceased. I have added this article to my watchlist; I'll semi-protect it if vandalism starts again. Tizio 11:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Category page creation

A request, please... it appears that "Bad old ones" tool is not working correctly at this time. I've left a note as to the bug in the system - it shows images that are in use as "no on any pages". A big error in an admin's doing "clean" deletion of images. Would it be possible to remove the tool from the new/dated categories (such as Disputed non-free images as of ***) for now until the bug is fixed? Thanks. SkierRMH (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the information on the admin noticeboard, it appears the this tool probably shouldn't be on any of the en.wiki only image maintenance categories. Also, as it's not working correctly for the commons images as of now, it probably should be removed from those until it's fixed. SkierRMH (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. See admin noticeboard for details. Tizio 14:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

completing AFD pages

In AFD pages being completed by the bot, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beryl Chugspoke and a few other pages on today's AFD log, the section which is only included on the log page is not linking properly to the AFD page and is instead showing "([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])". It looks like the code is not working correctly within the <includeonly> tags, also the "delete" link which is in other pages, is not being added by the bot. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. I know about this problem, but I haven't had much time to look at it in details. In particular, I don't understand why FULLPAGENAME is not subst'd. Tizio 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Siberian Tiger

Why do you keep removing the protection template, i believe an admin added the template tot he page.

Cheers and Kind Regards CheetahKeeper (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of 16 May 2008

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of 16 May 2008, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of 16 May 2008 has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of 16 May 2008, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Would it be possible for your bot to remove Template:pp-usertalk from no longer protected userpages, to go along with your removal of protection templates of non-protected pages in article space? I've noticed quite a few with the template that were not actually protected while going through Category:Protected user and user talk pages. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The bot was already supposed to do that, but didn't because of a problem with query.php. Anyway, as a security measure, the bot doesn't remove templates if the resulting page is too short (less than 200 chars). Maybe that's the reason the bot looks like it doesn't remove these templates. Tizio 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the reply. Looking closer, it also looks like some of the templates were Subst'd, which I'd imagine may also create some problems identifying the template. VegaDark (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for pasting that template on Barnes, London - I naively thought that templates were for use by everyone and that it would act as a great deterrent to further vandalism on that article page. After reading your FAQ/Q&A I now realise that it was not the right way of going about it - but after having put in two requests for semi-protection and said requests having been rejected as unnecessary, I tried to be creative and took the law into my own hands. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Tizio 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Query

I need help renaming about 200 articles. Doing this by hand would take me all day.

Can your bot rename articles, or be adapted to do so?

If so, please contact me.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

people keep vandalizing this page Church of the Nazarene, that's why I put protect-lock on there. Please stop removing it.Moonraker0022 (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, take a look at the first section of this page. Tizio 12:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

url not detected

For copyvio images, I see 'url not detected' quite often. Presumably the URL for the infringed upon site was not specified for the template. Is it possible for DumbBOT to scan the Image's description for a URL? -- Robocoder (t|c) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but I believe that this would cover only a few cases. Most of the time, people just throw in an imagevio template without bothering to add a reason. Tizio 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-listing articles

FYI: DumbBOT is re-listing articles in the Very old issues, Consolidated section of WP:CV. -- Robocoder (t|c) 09:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tizio. I've already striked the re-listed issues. -- Robocoder (t|c) 18:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to create NowCommons dated categories

CSD I8 was changed to no longer require the one-week waiting period for NowCommons tagged images, so the categories are no longer used. DumbBOT no longer needs to create these categories, as {{NowCommons}} doesn't sort images into them anyway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The bot will no longer create these categories. Tizio 12:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone made me notice that I only removed one of these cats from the creation list... I will update it by the end of the August. Tizio 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Source code of DumbBOT

Hello, I wonder, If you can show source code or help with similar bot in cs.wiki. We would like to have some bot, which every day check articles in some categories and write to same page or section new articles, which were not here yesterday. I think bot can compare these two lists and write only new, but how? JAn Dudík (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What I can easily do is to produce a list of the pages in the category ordered by the last time the page entered the category. This way, you can see which articles are now by simply look at the bottom of the list. I can't do it right now, however. I should be back by the end of August. Tizio 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for reply I'll write it to your czech talk page. JAn Dudík (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bit broken

Hey Tizio!

This update was a bit broken - listing the non-existent AfD pages rather than the article linked to non-existent AfD pages. I was still able to clear it, it just took two extra clicks. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 14:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I needed to make some changes to make the bot work with the new api.php interface... This particular problem is fixed now (as well as the problem of reporting all articles with a " in them as "not linking to discussion"). Please let me know if you see any other problem. Tizio 18:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Adjustment to WP:CP

Hi. Since articles are no longer at WP:CP, we're no longer using subpages, but we forgot to tell you. :) When possible, could you please have DumbBOT list new articles directly on the article day? For example, while it currently lists at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 September 21/Articles, listing instead at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 September 21? Would be much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have made the necessary changes. The bot will not create the subpage if it doesn't exist, but this shouldn't be a problem. Tizio 13:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fumio Nakajima

What was wrong with the AfD for this, that the dumbbot allegedly fixed? -- ratarsed (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The relsting was incomplete (at least, according to the bot). The relisting should a. remove the subpage from the afd page of the day it was nominated and b. add the subpage to the afd page of the day of the relisting. Apparently, the relister forgot step b. It's not something the original nominator should worry about. Tizio 12:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that, from the way it was worded, I thought it was my bad... -- ratarsed (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Argentine economy:

DumbBOT:

I would have done it myself; but wouldn't know how, or if I could. Could you please consider placing a protection on the Economy of Argentina article?

For whatever reason, it's been victim to nearly constant vandalism on the part of high schoolers at their computer lab (probably just as well: God knows they don't learn anything else there).

Please contact me with any questions.

Kindly,

Sherlock4000 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the article has had a reduced amount of vandalism in the last 2 days. Generally, an article is protected only in case of massive vandalism (say, 10 vandalistic edits a day). I places the article in my watchlist, so I'll see and revert vandalism if it occurs again. Tizio 13:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Cars characters

Now can the List of Cars characters be protected? --Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? I do not see much vandalism on it. Please take a look at WP:PROTECT. Tizio 16:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Virtually every edit since the first of this month has either been vandalism or removal of vandalism. I count 18 inicidents of vandalism in the past two days alone, mostly from the same IP address. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there are not been any vandalism in the last two days. I disagree with protecting in such cases, but if want a second opinion you can request it at Wikipedia:Request for page protection. Tizio 12:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange edit

DumbBot made a strange edit to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion. Instead of adding a subpage for 12 December it inserted ten subpages (from 3 to 12 December) creating duplication. Ruslik (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. The bot certainly never adds the "Current list" heading to the page. I really have no idea of what went wrong that time. Thanks for reporting, anyway. Tizio 16:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Images at Wikipedia:Copyright Problems

Hi. DumbBot, which is otherwise quite the hero at CP, has started listing images at copyright problems, possibly because the extension names have changed? We don't handle images there. And it's expanding the images, too. :) (See [23].) Your Bot does awesome work in the CP department, but is there a way to put these in a proper location, like PUI? Or at least prevent the images posting? (The first time it happened, I presumed this was because they had been inadvertently tagged with a text copyvio tag, which DumbBot can be good at catching, but I'm at a loss as to why this one is there.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the problem was because of the namespace name change. I have fixed the problem (files are not listed any longer). However, I am not much active on wikipedia nowadays, so I will probably not implement the image listing feature, at least for now. Tizio 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and nice to see you, even if only briefly. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible...

For DumbBOT to be specific about what was not complete about a given AfD's listing, and give a link to what it did to correct it? seresin ( ¡? )  00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is possible, and also easy, since the missed step is always the same: it's step 3 of Template:AfD in 3 steps. I clarified the bot's message (will show in the next run). Tizio 14:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PRODSUM

This has not been updated for over two days now. DGG (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It was a network problem, the bot itself seems fine. Thanks for reporting. Tizio 14:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bug?

Hi, I noticed that with this edit, DumbBOT cleared the RfD log for Jan 31 instead of creating a new log page for Feb 1. If this is a bug (and not just gremlins in the code!) could it be fixed before the next log page update? Thanks. Richard⁰⁶¹² 09:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that the problem was the same of the following bug report, that is, the bot went on even if it could not load a page that was necessary to work correctly. I believe this is fixed now. Tizio 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

DUMB bot

This edit was a serious problem. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! I think I've located the bug (a missing check). Thanks for reporting. Tizio 16:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Names of image/file maintenace categories

Please keep an eye on this rename discussion - it has a strong impact on this bot's activities in this area. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. As far as I remember, the bot does not deal with images any longer but, who knows?, maybe this rename would affect the bot in some unpredicable way. Tizio 18:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The bot does create the daily categories for the listed categories - and the rename affects both the titles of these pages and their categorization. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I was thinking about the bot's function of listing copyright violation, which does not deal with images any longer. The change that would be required to keep the new names into account is very simple, so there should be no problem at all. Tizio 16:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

prodsum

PRODsum seems down 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

All bot functions went down for about a week. More or less everything should be fine now. Tizio 16:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

CS

Hello, there was no update of copyvio list on cs.wiki. Is there any problem? JAn Dudík (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a change in the server configuration made the bot go crazy :-) I'll fix this tomorrow. Tizio 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion maintenance

Hi - first off, thanks for doing this, as I can remember when it had to always be done by hand. However, there seems to be an issue recently where DumbBOT is transcluding daily pages without creating them, leaving a redlinked transclusion on the top of the main listing. Can you make sure the bot creates those pages (as it used to) before transcluding them? I've been doing it by hand when I notice, but it's easy for hand-created pages to miss adding the date header or have other problems. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. I had disabled that function for testing reasons but forgot to take it up again. It should all be fixed now. Next scheduled creation is at 1:50 next morning (local time). Tizio 12:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's still buggy - I had to create the daily page again; see history [24]. Just letting you know. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean, my local time. That was 0:50 Wikipedia time (UTC). It seems to work now. Tizio 15:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it's working correctly now. Thanks for debugging it, and thanks again for doing the automated work in the first place. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Image -> Wikipedia Files

Hello. When you have a moment, please make the necessary modifications to your bot so that it produces the daily Speedy Deletion categories with the proper names - i.e. "Wikipedia Files xxx" instead of "Image xxx". Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, finally! The category starter templates are still named with "image", but this should not be a problem because these are not visibile to most users. In case you want them to reflect the new names of the categories, please create the new versions instead of moving the old one. Then drop me a message and I will make the necessary change. The names of the subcat starters are listed at User:DumbBOT/CatCreate. Tizio 13:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, let me know if you see any error in what the bot is doing now. Tizio 13:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RFD backlog separator

Hi, I added a backlog separator to WP:RFD, similar to the ones at WP:RM and WP:MFD, but JLaTondre removed it, because he thinks it would be too much of a pain to maintain, given the lack of continual admin maintenance at WP:RFD. I think it's a useful tool to let admins know which discussions are due for closure. Is this something DumbBOT could do for us? If so, let us know at User_talk:JLaTondre#RfD_backlog_separator, so we can hash out the wording of the separator. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That would require a completely new functionality for the bot to be created. I am currently too busy doing other things to add functions to the bot. Sorry. Tizio 15:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, never mind, then.--Aervanath (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mal-formatted AfD page?

Hi. With this edit DumbBot added a missing AfD template to a nomination, but for some reason the {{subst:FULLPAGENAME}} seemed to remain as "{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}" instead of substing properly and as a result the (view AfD) link didn't appear when the page was included. I don't really understand what happened or whether it was DumbBOT's fault but I thought I'd let you know. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. I know this sometimes happens, but haven't investigated the problem in much details so far. I guess the first user to comment may as well fix the header while they are at that... Tizio 18:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Regular

I've been manually fixing pages in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates for quite some time now. There are an average of around 30 new pages every day. And if I don't do anything for a few days then the number just grows accordingly. When does this bot start its work on this category? Once a week? If there are more than 200 articles? Or are those the articles the bot can't find and/or fix? (You can have a look at my user contributions for examples.) Debresser (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I run the bot manually, but since it seems to work fine, I will probably switch it to scheduled. There are some article it doesn't process, indeed (e.g., all templates). I will check the issue better tomorrow. Tizio 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There are a few userpages and templates there every day, but I'd say three quarters of the pages in this category are mainspace articles. My advice would be to let it run twice a day. It would have to fix some 10-12 pages every time. I hope that is possible. See for example Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template, which used to gather some 30-40 pages a day as well, and is now one-way-or-the-other cleaned so often that I rarely find more than five pages at any given moment. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a test run, and everthing seems fine. The bot removes protection templates from pages that are not protected, running twice a day, as you suggested. Let's see how it runs for a couple of days.

Great. Now let's await the results. I won't touch anything for aday or so. Exept userpages andtemplates and the like, as discussed above. Debresser (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template, I don't think a bot could help much on it, or maybe it could?

There is a bot working on it regularly with great success. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

When I visited today there were only two pages, and a template and a userpage. Working perfectly! Debresser (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason your bot fixes only pages in main article namespace? It is true that making such edits in templates or userpages is more likely to be criticised! I speak from experience. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the bot only skips templates, not userpages. Generally, userpages are not changed because the bot, as a protection measure, avoids changing pages if the result is too short (to avoid the risk that the bot did something stupid while loading the page).

As for templates, the problem was that, in some cases, it was just right to have a non-protection template include a protection one. Don't ask me about it, I just don't remember :-) Tizio 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are the hardest cases for me, when a page includes a protected template, and the protection template of that template hasn't been included in <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. I struggled with such a case for the last three days before I eventually found the problem. Conversely, sometimes there is a protection template on the documentation page of a protected template, but in such a case the protection template should be inside <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the bot active? It seemed to me yesterday's articles were still there today. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The bot may sometimes skip an update or two sometimes; the problem is generally a hardware one (computer crashed, network down). As usual, the most serious problem occur when I just left for a vacation. That would explain why the bot resumed operation (I wasn't on leave). Tizio 13:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

:)) Debresser (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You're on vacation? The bot doesn't seem to be working. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Maybe you're referring to a specific function? Tizio 14:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I find a lot of incorrect protection templates the last two days. Debresser (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Another Image --> File fix

On pages such as Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source as of 22 May 2009, the bot creates a link to criterion I4. This is now F4...please update it. Thanks! -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 21:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. That was, I think, the only initializer that still needed the change. Tizio 12:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Category rename

Together with Rich Farmbrough we are doing a little standarisation. In connection with this we would like to rename all dated categories in Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source from "as of" to "from". This might make working with files tagged before 24 May 2009 a little more complicated as they might show up in any of the two categories if the file was tagged by transclusion in stead of substitution, but that should be a matter of two weeks at most, while files tagges from 24 May 2009 onwards will be in the new category. Please contact me on my talkpage if any problems. Thanks, Debresser (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out how you do that gallery version, but I'm fixing them to do that now. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Carnildo reverted the edit because of the OrphanBot he runs. Please see User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Di-no_source for the discussion if and how to do this. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Protecting Hannah Montana 3 & Wizards of Waverly Place

Q: I want to protect the album articles for: Hannah Montana 3 and Wizards of Waverly Place. How do I protect those pages? Please reply. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. You can request unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Tizio 14:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedia files needing editor assistance at upload as of 4 June 2009

I have nominated Category:Wikipedia files needing editor assistance at upload as of 4 June 2009 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — TAnthony^Talk 03:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

+ character in AfD's article title appears to have confused DumbBOT

The article Track+ has been nominated for deletion, and the editor doing so correctly followed all the steps, including creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Track+. However DumbBOT apparently got confused by the "+" in the article title and created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Track (since deleted), linking to Track+ citing an incomplete nomination missing stage 3.

Please reply on my talk page, or leave a note there advising of a reply here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

currently down?

Just thought you should know that DumbBOT hasn't updated User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary in more than 24 hours. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. Actually, this lapse was due to a network maintainance, so it was foreseenable. I should have placed a notice on the bot's page. Tizio 11:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be not updating again - nothing in 36 hours. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Back again... I'll make a try to put a stop of these network problems once and for all, one day. Tizio 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Five/seven-day PROD

User:DumbBOT says "the WP:PROD daily categories are created for the days from yesterday for four days." Should this say six days, since PRODs are now seven days long? I haven't corrected it myself in case I've misunderstood. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean that the bot tries to create the categories from the days from "today - 2 days" to "todays + 4 days". In other words, today (3/8/2009) it will try to create the categories relative to the days from 1/8/2009 to 7/8/2009. The lenght of the prod is only relevant as far as categories are deleted. Tizio 17:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I misinterpreted "from yesterday for four days" to mean backwards for four days. Thanks for your reply. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Active?

Hi again. Is your bot active in fixing protection templates? I have been on a wikibreak of my gnoming activities, but yesterday fixed all 117 of them, and today there were another 12 articles again. Debresser (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be working fine... The problem may be with the redirects to the templates. I'll check this: could you please let some articles unfixed and link it from here?

I left you Samurai and Tattoo. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Legobot III fixed Samurai in the mean time. Debresser (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tattoo was here two consequitive days remaining unfixed before I did that myself. So there does seem to be some problem. Debresser (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I was having some problems with the protection script I could not fix before leaving for vacation.　I'll be back next week, and I hope I will have some time to check the problem in details. User:Tizio (from a public terminal...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.42.154.18 (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice vacation. Don't worry: I'm not leaving the mess for you to fix. :) Debresser (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Nobody's Fault but Mine‎

The talk page was protected because an anonymous editor was vandalizing the talk. Please fix. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the FAQ at the top of this page. I unfortunately do not have much time to follow the issue, but it seems like the problem is already solved as of now. Tizio 14:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian Quintana

Cameron Scott has assumed ownership of Brian Quintana and is in an edit war again. Can we revert page to your last edit and Protect page a little longer. We have gone back and forth for years on Quintana and finally reached a consensus. Sorry that Cameron Scott does'nt like that he's a Producer (albeit controversial) or that he has ties to Oprah. His comments about A Better Chance being a black charity or pre-dating Oprah are absurd. Oprah has been a national spokeswoman for the program and has donated more than $12 million to it since 1997.It is respectfully called Oprah Winfrey's A Better Chance. See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_6_98/ai_63636133/ Even the most cursory search proves that. Clearly he has a conflict of interest. Who else makes 10 changes in one day to any page. I am not Brian as he suggests and it is against Wiki policy to insert names in notes. No one likes this guy, but the national press corps does support the article. There appear to be a handful of editors (cameron scott, geniac, tabercil) who do not like him. Please escalate if needed.

Possible disruption

It is possible that a change I have just made may disrupt this bot. I have temporarily emptied Category:All articles proposed for deletion and populated Category:Articles proposed for deletion instead. The aim is to fix the number of reported articles in this category. Please see WP:VPT#Number of articles in Category:All articles proposed for deletion for more info. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PRODSUM broken?

It appears that PRODSUM is broken? It says date mismatch, but there are no intervening edits on many pages between the PROD implementation and now. About 1/3 of PRODs listed are date mismatched at this time.

This might be caused by Martin's category thingy, but I don't know how, though since I don't know how your bot keeps track of date mismatches, it might just be.

76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was probabilty due to a change in the cats. The last column of the "date mismatch" table shows the time the article entered the category, so it didn't match the date of prodding. This seems to be something that fixes itself when old articles where removed or de-prodded, which is good because I had no way to fix it myself. Tizio 16:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Creation of subcategories of Category:Wikipedia files with no copyright tag

I was curious why your bot is still creating these subcategories when they haven't been in use for months. I've been deleting them as soon as their day expires without them ever having been populated. Are these supposed to be in use but there is simply an issue messing up the population of them? You should probably have your bot stop creating these categories unless/until this category grouping comes into use again. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't told these cats are no longer used, but most likely I was told but forgot the whole issue. Anyway, the bot won't create them any longer.

Please, let me know if there are any other cats that are no longer used, as well as cats the bot may create. Tizio 16:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks as though possibly the categories are getting created again, see Category:Wikipedia_files_with_no_copyright_tag_as_of_13_May_2015, Category:Wikipedia_files_with_no_copyright_tag_as_of_14_May_2015, Category:Wikipedia_files_with_no_copyright_tag_as_of_15_May_2015, Category:Wikipedia_files_with_no_copyright_tag_as_of_16_May_2015, Category:Wikipedia_files_with_no_copyright_tag_as_of_17_May_2015 Slivicon (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

DumbBOT relisting of some WP:SCV items on WP:CP no longer needed

Hi there,

Currently, DumbBOT picks up some (but not all) of CorenSearchBot's taggings and replicates them at WP:CP. After a recode of CSB, the latter now creates daily subpages that are transcluded directly on WP:CP, so relisting the CSB taggings is no longer needed. Thanks, MLauba (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, it appears DumbBOT actually finds some entries tagged by CSB yet not listed on WP:SCV for some reason. Looks like we'll continue to rely on DumbBOT to catch these in the future. MLauba (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your message until now. Fortunately, the problem was also reported on my talk page, so I fixed it. The problem was that CSB used separate subpages, which my bot didn't look. I have fixed the problem by requesting templates to be expanded in the export. Tizio 13:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot recreation of deleted maitenance category

Hey there - Just wondering why your bot recreated Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 11 November 2009 after I deleted it. It was empty past the day it would be populated, and thus would never be used. Your bot recreated it after the day in question, which may be a bug in the coding. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

On each day, the bot creates the categories associated with 'today-1day', 'today', ... , 'today+3days'. This means that the last creation attempt for a category is at 1:50AM (local time) on the day after the category's titular day. I guess this is needed in some cases, but I don't remember why. Perhaps you can just wait a couple of hours before deleting an empty cat associated to the day before. Tizio 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after (some date)

Hey there. I was wondering, shouldn't the categories created under replaceable non-free files (for example, Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 25 November 2009) contain __NOGALLERY__, considering that these files are non-free and should be displayed to limited extent? Regards. — ξ^xplicit 03:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue was discussed at lenght, but maybe for another category. One point was that the image was displayed in a page different than the subject itself, regardless: the image description page. Anyway, you could change the template starter yourself: Template:Images_with_no_fair_use_rationale_subcat_starter. Maybe it would be a good idea to ask in the talk page before.Tizio 16:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Possibly unfree files from xxxx

Do you think that the bot might create the Categories "Category:Possibly unfree files from YYYY Month DD" as subcategories of Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source for deletion in dispute? {{PUI}} is using these subcategories which are never created. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take care of that on Monday. Tizio 18:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. You might change Template:Possibly unfree files subcategory starter, which is the template that is initially subst'ed at creation. Some details about the parameters are at User:DumbBOT/CatCreate. Tizio 17:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tōru Sakai

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tōru Sakai. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tōru Sakai. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Active?

Is the bot active? I see 20+ pages a day with incorrect protection templates, and that seems to indicate the bot is not active. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems I finally got around the problem... (Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates) Tizio 19:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope so. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw 24 articles in about 24 hours. Isn't the bot supposed to do its work about twice a day? If so, 24 seems to indicate there still is sth not working. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The bot runs twice a day, indeed. However, it does not fix all articles in that category, but only removes a protection template when the page is not protected. If the page is protected by the template is wrong, it does not even get listed in the "not removed" list. Tizio 17:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)