User talk:Legobot/2014

pjahr → Przemek Jahr

Hello. Other Wikies make no problems, what am I to do to rename at en: Wikipedia ([1])? pjahr (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please rename my login. There is only en. Wiki which has a problem. At commons and de: Wiki they could do it, why cant'y you? pjahr (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Signature by Good Article review notification bot posts is improper

This is with regards to the notices that the bot posts notifying the nominator that a review has been started. Having such a notice is a GREAT idea, and thanks for the efforts of whoever is handling. But the signature that the bot is placing on those posts is that of the reviewer. (and IMHO the "on behalf of" notice earlier in the post does not make this OK) I hate to get tough on this, but it is saying things that I would not have said and putting my signature on the post....this is a violation of policy. But it needs to be signed by the bot that posted it, not signed by somebody who didn't post it.

Having such a notice is a GREAT idea, and thanks for the efforts of whoever is handling.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I really don't see anything wrong with it tbh. Maybe start a discussion at WT:GAN? Legoktm (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki replacement?

Are you still running the Legobot 28 task to remove interwikis and if necessary add Wikidata links? There are some recent occasional cases of adding obsolete interwiki links to articles [2] [3] Dl2000 (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. You should probably check with Addshore to see if he's running his bot, though I've heard he's pretty busy too :/ Legoktm (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My bot is also not currently running :/ ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Legobot

Is it possible to make Legobot "smart" enough to place all the notices in the same section of a talk page for a single article. Rather than creating three separate sections for review, hold and pass/fail that are all entitled Your GA nomination of Article X.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Probably, but unfortunately I don't have the time to write the code. All the code is open source, so if you or someone else wants to implement this, I'll be happy to review the code and run it. Legoktm (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Albania

Would it be possible to have the bot tag with the WikiProject Albania banner the many articles that don't have the tag in the talk page? Thank you, regards! --Perkohesisht ai i vjetri (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Perkohesisht ai i vjetri: you should probably ask at WP:BOTR. Legoktm (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC bot

I just saw Legobot select the creator of an RFC for a random "Please comment on". Maybe it could ignore the creator for such a post or look at the RFC and exclude users that have already commented. Morphh ^(talk) 14:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That's awkward. The selection procedure is entirely random, so it is technically possible. This would probably be a nice feature to have, but unfortunately I don't have the time to write the code. All the code is open source, so if you or someone else wants to implement this, I'll be happy to review the code and run it. Legoktm (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC Template Removal and Timestamp Location

Would it be possible to have Legobot remove the RFC template based no activity within 30 days of the final timestamp in the section rather than the first? The benefits would be:

1. It would prevent accidental deletion of the RFC template while a discussion is ongoing

2. It would preserve the accuracy of the timeline of the discussion since currently the run-around to this is to retroactively edit the first timestamp to a later, although inaccurate, date. Holdek (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Right now RfCs run for about 30 days. If we switch the bot to the final timestamp, that would mean as long as people keep discussing, it would go on forever. Legoktm (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"As long as people keep discussing, it would go on forever." That's a truism. Holdek (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Improper removal

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_style_and_naming&curid=2427796&diff=592514269&oldid=592506925

Mind providing some more context? Legoktm (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

After checking around, I realized the bot will delist RFCs that don't include a date in the same section as the {{rfc}} tag. I edited Wikipedia:Requests for comment to emphasize that providing this date isn't only a matter of style or custom; it prevents proper listing. Sorry I missed the date requirement earlier. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Odd edit summaries on good article nominations

Hi
FYI, the four edit summaries here don't seem to match the actual edits: [4].
It's also possible that I just don't understand what's going on. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 11:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Whats up with edits such as [5] this with Rosiestep's count going up constantly? --AdmrBoltz 21:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I just posted a note about this on the GA nom talkpages. Rosiestep's review counter is now up to 51 and apparently still climbing, meaning the bot's added and removed the one entry about twenty-five times over the last few hours. Shoebox2 talk 22:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's been posted to AN/I as well... Wikipedia:AN/I#Malfunctioning_bot --AdmrBoltz 22:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And to the bot operator's talk page.--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So basically this happens whenever someone screws up the {{GA}} template. It can be easily fixed by fixing the template, like was done here. Legoktm (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) --AdmrBoltz 23:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Automatically moved page while renaming the user Dosonto Bluemooneditor

Hey I recently changed my username from Doson to Bluemooneditor but with the bad part is Doson still redirects to Bluemooneditor leaving all the history intact. How do I remove that redirect and permanently delete Doson page. And how do I make sure that Page History don't show up on my new Username. Thanks BLUEMOONEDITOR (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

failure to index talk archives

Hi, whoever is reading - could you take a look at why Talk:Roller derby/Archive index isn't getting generated? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Also found Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive index. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I set up the indexing template on my user talk page and so far Legobot hasn't even looked at it. Going through the bot's contributions, it seems like it hasn't indexed a single talk page in a long time. It's up and running - it's been doing other tasks, but not this one. Any reasons as to why this may be the case? K6ka (talk | contribs) 16:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The indexing task (#15) is effectively inactive. Legobot has only done one pass, on December 10, 2013, in the last 11 months. I hope that it becomes active again as archive indexes are useful to have available. — Makyen (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Improper removal, part 2

I do not understand this removal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology&curid=2397904&diff=592834802&oldid=592716244

Please explain why this happened.

I am making a wild guess that the bot won't recognize an RFC contained in a level 3 heading (with three equal signs on either side of heading title) so have edited the section accordingly. Please confirm if this is true, and if it is true, edit the instructions in Wikipedia:Requests for comment accordingly. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with the section heading level. It happened because this edit had already happened, which was because the RfC had expired. Notice that the first datestamp after the {{Rfc}} is 18:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC), and 29 December plus 30 days is 28 January - which is today, so Legobot considered the RfC to have expired at 18:03 (UTC) today, and so carried out its designed task of delisting the RfC at 19:00 today. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think your looking at the wrong delisting. The delisting I was concerned about was for the section WT:MOSNUM#RFC: Connection between ISO 8601 standard and YYYY-MM-DD date format. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The bot also removed a request of mine that had not been processed at all and only been submitted less than an hour earlier. GotR ^Talk 21:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the bot reverted back to the version of 03:23, 3 March 2014 before adding its own text at the bottom. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Logged out

• Special:Contributions/10.4.1.102 - is it also editing occasionally whilst logged out as well? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

  See User_talk:Legoktm#Legobot. Legoktm (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bug with transcluding GA notification

See this diff. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 01:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Time to clean up a bunch of talk pages >.< Legoktm (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The same error was made on another user's talk page, and of course it prevents display, not only of the end of that message but also of any further text added to the bottom of that page until it is corrected. Do you know how many talk pages are similarly afflicted? How far are you through the clean up you mentioned above? --David Biddulph (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency

Just curious why Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency has not yet shown up listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Language and literature ?

Thank you for all you do for WP:GA,

— Cirt (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, it showed up there. Thanks again for all your help with the WP:GAN processes!!! — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

GAN problems

The bot doesn't seem to be working. It's not adding new reviews, deleting closed reviews nor doing all the normal closing stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

See Legoktm|'s most recent edit above at #CHUS clerkbot - the bot is being migrated. I'm not sure what the ETA on its return is... –xeno^talk 17:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, hope that it will catch everything that happened while it was down.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to cause trouble, but is there any reason we can't have two bots on two different servers, such that one takes over if the other goes down? I understand that they are migrating to a new labs platform, but if that goes down, won't we be in the same boat again? Is there any redundancy built into the bot server framework? Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The bot relies on a database to know what it has already proccessed and what it hasn't. There's not really an easy way to sync it between multiple servers that would keep it going if one were to go down. The bot should proccess everything that happend while it was gone when it comes back though. Legoktm (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Update

Ok, so update on where Legobot is right now. All tasks not requiring a user database should be running right now. Things that are down are:

• RFC bot
• FRS bot
• GA bot

I've spoken with Coren, and he says he'll be able to migrate my database in a few hours. At that point everything should be ready to run and should catch up on the backlog automatically. Legoktm (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, everything should be running as scheduled now. Please let me know if there are any issues with the bot missing stuff during downtime. Legoktm (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Single-deck solitaire card games

Category:Single-deck solitaire card games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. TheChampionMan1234 04:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect removal of expired RfC

Legobot removed an RfC template which I inserted a day before. That should not happen, I think. — Petr Matas 11:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It was removed because the very next datestamp was 10:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC) - more than thirty days earlier. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I see. However, shouldn't the template insertion date (which is displayed in RfC lists) be considered instead? — Petr Matas 11:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That would probably make sense, but unfortunately I don't really have the time to poke at the code to do that (patches welcome!), so in the meantime you're probably better off just creating a level 3 subsection and putting {{rfc}} in that. Legoktm (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Query on Good Article Nominations

@Legobot: Dear Legobot, I noticed you immediately removed two articles I nominated for review earlier this morning at the recommendation of Jreferee. As I am not expert in using these various forums on Wikipedia, would you be kind enough to explain what I did wrong and how the two articles -- Robin Raphel and Timothy M. Carney -- can be renominated under proper formatting for review as good articles? Thank you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mansoor Ijaz: The page Wikipedia:Good article nominations is not intended to be edited by users; if Legobot (which is a bot, not a human) notices that it has been changed by somebody other than itself, it reverts those changes. The correct thing to do is to add a {{subst:GAN}} to the top of the article's talk page, as described at WP:GAN/I#Step 2: Nominating the article. I see that you have now done this to both Talk:Robin Raphel and Talk:Timothy M. Carney, as a result of which Legobot has now added them to the main GAN list. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I'm not particularly bright, so it takes me some time to understand these things. But I think I did it right and appreciate your reply to my query of a "bot" -- now I really feel like a zero IQ type! Have a great day. Best, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Request to fix glitch.

@Legobot: On WP:GAN, Legobot keeps saying this: "New Devika Rani (Theatre, film and drama)". Can anyone please fix this error? I'll be gladly appreciated. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 04:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It was trying to do this, but kept on failing. Apparently the edit summary is prepared separately from the content being posted, and reflects what the bot would like to have done, not what the bot really did. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Camarillo Classic

I am concerned something happened following the bot's normal work. On the above named article, I have it in my watch list, along with the AFD discussion page. When the decision changed the related articles, I saw all that activity in my watchlist. I happened to be watching during that one hour. After the bot did its work, all of that disappeared. I suspect the bot wiped out the watchlist. I caught it this time but this could be important. I needed to follow up on the change. Had I not known the change had occurred, I would have missed it. The bot activity should not affect my watchlist or the subsequent visibility of that activity. Please check. Trackinfo (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, my bot can't change your watchlist. No one can except for you... Legoktm (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Featured icon

Legobot is adding {{featured article}} to recently FLs, rather than {{featured list}}. See example. Adabow (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, didn't realize there was a different template for lists. Fixed, thanks! Legoktm (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocking bots on deceased editor's Talk page

Can you please block bot posts on User:Cindamuse's Talk page? I tried doing so but the page is still getting bot posts so something didn't take. Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary error

This diff has an edit summary of "Failed Malaysia–Vietnam relations", but in fact the article passed. Not sure if this is a bug in Legobot or reflects something odd about the way the article was passed, but I thought I'd mention it here in case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Double-check I didn't mess up anything by moving GA page

I recently reviewed the article Robbing the Cradle's Good Article Nomination. When I began the review, the article (which is very new) was titled Robbing the Cradle (video game level). After a discussion, I moved the article page (and by default the talk page) to the new name. I noted that the old review page hadn't automatically moved so I also moved it to Talk:Robbing the Cradle/GA1 from Talk:Robbing the Cradle (video game level)/GA1. Legobot delivered a fail message to its nominator, JimmyBlackwing. I hope I didn't inadvertently mess up things like GA article counts and the like. Apologies if I did. CR4ZE (t • c) 08:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

CHUS clerkbot

Could you run this at least every half hour? I like it to mark my requests done and don't want the other 'crats spending time looking at requests that may have already been completed. Thanks, –xeno^talk 18:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done, crontab looks like: 0,30 * * * * jsub -once -mem 400M -N chu php /data/project/legobot/harej/chu.php now. Let me know if that's not enough and I can increase it again. Legoktm (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! 30 minutes should be good; I can fulfill my requests later in the half hour. Keep up the good work =) –xeno^talk 19:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Seems to be AWOL right now. @Legoktm: –xeno^talk 16:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

  Manually restarted it, was complaining about some cryptic labs error... Legoktm (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

  Again? –xeno^talk 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

  Looks like it fixed itself this time...starting at 04:00 UTC until 21:00 UTC the error log is filled with "there is a job named 'chu' already active", which means for some reason the existing job hadn't finished/completed/died, and the bot intentionally won't start a new run if one is already in progress to avoid running over itself. I'm hoping the situation with labs will improve next week-ish when it migrates to a new datacenter. Legoktm (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Does the bot give a 10 minute grace before marking my requests as done, and if so, can this delay be removed? –xeno^talk 15:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  @Legoktm: ^ Or lowered to 5 minutes perhaps? (P.S. If there is no grace, then the bot seems to have stopped marking my requests 'done'. By 1600 I should know one way or the other) –xeno^talk 15:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  The bot only runs every 30 minutes, which is probably the delay you're seeing. Should I increase it? Legoktm (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  Yes - it looks like it's running more often now - that's great. Thanks! –xeno^talk 13:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Legoktm: the bot is down again, it seems. –xeno^talk 02:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry, I just realized I forgot to move my bots to the new labs datacenter, so it's been disabled for a few hours until it gets moved (currently in a queue) and I re-enable it. Coren estimates it should be a few hours. Really sorry about the downtime. Legoktm (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

  No problem. Do you think it will be more stable now? –xeno^talk 18:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Legoktm: any update on this? –xeno^talk 13:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  CHU tasks should be running now. Legoktm (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Legoktm: I think that the toolserver will not be available for much longer [6]. LegoBot should now point to the WMFlabs or to sulutil:Example, for better future proofing. –xeno^talk 03:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  Good point. Done. Legoktm (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Legoktm: Legobot seems to be down –xeno^talk 14:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  chu should be back now. My bot's crontab got wiped ([7]) so I'm trying to restore it...ugh :/ Legoktm (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for your continued efforts! –xeno^talk 13:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Link to moved RFC

Legobot reverted [8] my update of a link to a moved RFC at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#rfc_D64579D. The old location originally had a link to the new location but that post had been archived so users couldn't find the new location. I have restored the link at the old page and attempted to avoid archiving of it.[9] Where should the link to the RFC location be fixed to avoid Legobot interfering? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	hi will you be my wiki friend Doorknob747 23:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Legobot ignored nowiki tags

I assume this is a fixable bug.  It happened here.  This is not a page where editors can use Template:Nobots or similar tags.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

To illustrate the markup for a template, use {{tlx}}, as in {{RfC|policy}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Rename user Pablomx7

Hi, I want to rename my account on english wikipedia, i did this on polish wikipedia and I want to do this on all wikiprojects. Look here: Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple#Pawel Ruminkiewicz → Pablomx7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.215.121.105 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Closing FACs

Hi, great to see this bot now looking after FAC closures in place of GimmeBot, VoxelBot, manual intervention, etc. However there seems to be an issue with the closure time. To take Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cutthroat trout/archive1, for instance, it says the article was promoted on 30 April, using this diff for the timestamp. The problem is that the diff is for a different FAC (the most recently promoted, if that helps) so the recorded promotion date and the actual promotion date are 12 days apart. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Eek, thanks for the note. I had a bug identifying the revision the FAC was closed in, which should be fixed now. Let me know if you see anythign else wrong! Legoktm (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Legoktm:, is the bot going to run on the FACs and FLCs today? A number of archived and promoted nominations are pending. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been able to tell if that bug I identified has been fixed because as far as I can see the bot hasn't run in quite a while. When you're ready to start it again, pls let everyone know on WT:FAC, because users (mainly Sarastro1) have been manually closing FACs in the meantime and are continuing to do so to reduce the backlog. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

RFC Template removed and marked as expired - it was only 35 minutes old

I'm wondering why an RFC Template was removed, with the comment, "expired"? It was only there for 35 minutes? The page is Talk:Elizabeth II#Issue. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As noted in several threads in the archives of this page, Legobot doesn't go by the time that the {{rfc}} was placed, but by the first timestamp that follows it; in this case it was 23:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC), which is more than 30 days ago, so the RFC was considered to be expired. To prevent early expiry, you can sign the {{rfc}} with five tildes when you first add it to the page, like this:

{{rfc|bio}} RfC started ~~~~~

Legobot will then give the RFC the full thirty-day run. This edit should fix it. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and the explanation. I will know in future. Melbourne3163 (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

GA request

Legobot, thanks to you and many other bots that keep this place functioning (plus the editors!).

I was wondering if you'd be able to change the GA notification so that a link is provided to the review in the notification you give

I also can't actually find the fact that you do GA notifications on your task list, so that may need to be added as it does appear to be a function

Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to do that by editing the bot's notice at Template:GANotice. Legoktm (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Legobot down?

There hasn't been any action by Legobot since 17:20 UTC. I made a change to one of the GA nominee templates at 21:10 that should have caused Legobot to update the GA nominations page. Please check when you get the chance. Many thanks (and thanks for the bot!). BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Think this might be a WMF Labs/Toolserver issue, though ClueBot NG isn't affected like it normally is. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

how does one enroll an RfC into Legobot?

I'd like to have this RfC on Super-spreader enrolled in the Legobot. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @SW3 5DL: What do you mean by "enrolled in the Legobot"? This edit shows that Legobot has recognised it as an RfC. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, got it. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Not working on Template talk:Infobox body of water

Legobot isn't archiving Template talk:Infobox body of water. Can you help, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done (talk page stalker) It was not archiving because that page was not, and appears to never have been, configured to have archiving performed on it. I have added a configuration set to archive threads older than one year. In addition, I have added a signature to one thread which did not have a date-stamp. — Makyen (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Makyen: Thank you. I did check, and that page had {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=/Archive index|mask=/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} (which I see you modified); it was the documentation for that template that led me here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand; it can be confusing.

The {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn}} tells Legobot to index the archives. The task to do this, Task 15, is effectively defunct with only one run in the last year (10 December). It is unclear when, if ever, it will become working. LegoBot does not actually perform archiving. However, it has done so a couple/few times as specific runs during the time between the MiszaBots becoming defunct and User:lowercase sigmabot III (lcSB3) taking over the task. I modified the configuration for it mostly because I have the set of three templates {{Archives}}, {{User:MiszaBot/config}}, and {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn}} as one of my sticky copy-and-paste selections. I know they work and work together. [I have it on my list of things I am planning to do to create substitutable templates to make putting an archive config on pages easier. However, I have failed to get it done. I will try to look at it this weekend.] The set I use is effectively a grouping of the configurations which I have put on Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archival. That page has more description of setting up archiving and several cut-and-paste examples.

The {{User:MiszaBot/config}} template is the actual configuration for lowercase sigmabot III which is one of two archiving bots currently in general use. The other is ClueBot III. Help:Archiving a talk page provides more information about them, some of their differences, etc. — Makyen (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

FFAC should not replace GA status

this edit suggests that an article loses its GA status when it fails at FAC. Please fix this and check for similar errors.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Legobot ignoring {{bots|deny=Legobot}}

See: Template:Rfc/testcases • Revision History and Template:Rfc • Revision History
Legobot blocking {{ bots | deny=Legobot }} added June 9; Legobot making changes June 10.
Also see: User talk:Legoktm   — Who R you? Talk 03:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Apostrophe bug?

Please take a look at this edit when you get a chance. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Patch for Legobot bug - votes included even when separated by a section mark.

this edit was an attempt to correct two errors by Legobot. But it reverted me. My edit summary is:

rm votes included due to lack of section mark. Legobot didn't catch up, even when fixed

I had noticed that a page the extracted text came from now had a section marker (=== Support === ) or something like that, and figured that Legobot would surely not copy past a section marker, but it does. It looks like it copies 'till it sees something that looks like a signature. I suggest it be enhanced to copy only 'till it sees something that looks like a signature or a section break. I'm lost; which task is performing these edits to WP:RFC anyway? I read through the 28 task descriptions and none seemed to match! Can't find it in github either; tried a few searches!! [edit: I may have found it. Is this it? Looking at L205, L209 - maybe the author thought this was a feature not a bug?]--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 04:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Elvey: Legobot looks for a timestamp. The initial RfC proposal - the bit before the first !vote - should be signed with either four or five tildes. This timestamp not only marks the end of the text that is copied to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines but is also used to determine the start of the RfC process - the expiry is thirty days after that. See WP:RFC#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues point 3. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I guess that's line 209, that I mentioned, that looks for a timestamp. Thanks.

I still don't know: which task is performing these edits to WP:RFC? Please document this at User:Legobot [edit: The BRFA is here? I added some (crude) documentation. ]

Here's a possible fix: Add this after L210:

$description = preg_replace("'''\n\n.*", "", $description); // truncate at start of section header

here is a patch with a long comment. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 15:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Any followup on the patch I provided?--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 08:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

MFD Archive Bug?

Please review this edit, instead of archiving--the discussion was relisted. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

CHUS clerk needs a nudge

@Legoktm: Thanks! –xeno^talk 14:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot down?

Legobot has not edited WP:GAN in 2.5 days. What is going on? You may want to explain things to people at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#User:Legobot_down.3F.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Responded there, thanks for the heads up. Legoktm (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not counting reviews at GAN

This edit had Legobot add a nomination of mine to WP:GAN (one that I messed up, as can be seen in previous edits). However, it neglected to mentioned that I've reviewed four articles for GA status (see this page for the four). I'm safely assuming this is due to my recent name change (as I was Corvoe in every closing, including one that I closed the day of the change) but I'm not sure. Sock (tock talk) 19:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You can update User:GA bot/Stats then. Legoktm (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Legoktm: Oh, okay. Thank you! Sock (tock talk) 22:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Task 22

It appears the bot has not run this task for quite a while now... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Legoktm, could you please look into this? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Legoktm, my apologies for bothering you again but you haven't responded to this at all, so I'm not sure if you're even aware of it... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's probably broken, don't really have time right now to figure out why. Legoktm (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Congratulations! TheQ Editor has marked Legobot as the 2nd best bot on the English Wikipedia. Doing a lot of simple tasks that humans do not have to worry about. Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

possible GA bot task

Is it possible for legobot to update the lists of good articles? Many editors forget this step, and having a bot doing it would be great? NickGibson3900 ^{Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions} 07:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John Bauer (illustrator)/GA1

Hi, You transcluded Talk:John Bauer (illustrator)/GA1 to Talk:John Bauer (illustrator) for the GA nomination - Thanks!

Since then, I updated the format of the GA1 subpage to use the Template:GATable which I like much more than the list, but the table is not showing up on the Talk:John Bauer (illustrator) page. It does appear as expected, though, on the GA1 subpage. Did I do something wrong?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OH, thanks anyway, it's working now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Error in RFC listing when combined with a WP:RM request

See [10] where Legobot picked up an RfC combined with an RM which results in this [11] erroneous condition. Legobot should not be copying the requested move template, as User:RMCD bot uses that template transclusion to create automated move request listings. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves should not be tagged with an RfC template. Legoktm (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That it should not be done isn't the same as that it doesn't happen. Could the bot be made to exclude copying the move request template? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The bot copies everything after the {{rfc}} template down to the next datestamp, and doesn't inspect what is between those points. This is why you sometimes get massive chunks of wikicode like this appearing in the RfC pages. Putting the datestamp in a suitable place improves matters --Redrose64 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Placing the RFC template after the RM template also improves matters. But it still keeps happening [12], as people still keep add RFC banners to open move requests. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Just remove the {{rfc}} - there is no need to add them to a RM, because a RM is automatically in Category:Requested moves and bot-listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC tag removed from Talk:Champagne Charlie (play)?

How was that tag expired when I had just put it up today? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Aristophanes68: Assuming that you mean this edit, it's because the very next timestamp was 23:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC). As far as the bot was concerned, the RfC closed nearly six years ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a comment to a discussion that was started years ago but had never been resolved, and I didn't think we needed to create a new thread on it. Where should I have put the RfC to not confuse the bot? Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would have added a level 3 heading, and started the RfC below that:

==Evidence==
Evidence about the existence of a play seems to be hard to come by. ...
:The "popular actor" George Lemon, ...
::Lemon would just be a character's name anyway, as a stand-in for Leybourne. ...

===RfC on the existence of a play===
{{rfc|media}}
Is there any evidence for the existence of ... ~~~~

In this way, it's also clear that the two comments from 2008 were not made as part of the RfC, but are background information to the new RfC. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks--that's helpful to know for next time. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Mark global renames as done

Requested by xeno. Will look into it today hopefully Legoktm (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Legoktm. With the global renamer usergroup rolling out soon this would be great to have. –xeno^talk 01:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Xeno: now implemented in the code, it'll look like [13]. Legoktm (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks muchly. I'll test it soon I gather. –xeno^talk 09:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, is this code live yet? It didn't mark this one: [14] –xeno^talk 13:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  @Legoktm:? –xeno^talk 18:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

  maybe i was impatient, or you fixed it. either case, thanks! –xeno^talk 15:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Legoktm: it works sometimes but not always. 1 of 3 it marked here: [15] –xeno^talk 12:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't touched the code since I last commented here. I'll try to take a look over the weekend. Legoktm (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Legoktm Any progress on this? [16] –xeno^talk 18:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CHUS clerking

The bot hasn't edited WP:CHUS for a few hours. Could you get the issue checked out? Thanks :) --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 01:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably due to [17]. Whenever the issue is fixed, the bot will automatically start clerking again. Legoktm (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Triggering Legobot on a GAN

Hey, I reviewed Yelp and passed it while the labs server was on fire. I think Legobot has started back up but hasn't updated the talk page or the article. Is there a way to tell it to run through that nom or is it kosher for me to add the review oldid and put the little plus on the article page? Thanks. Protonk (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Milk

Moooooo Flamer1337 (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC not listed

Talk:Epilepsy has an RFC that hasn't been assigned an id number and isn't listed on the correct category page. RFC pages haven't been updated for a couple of days. Can someone take a look? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The ID number was assigned with this 08:00, 13 October 2014 edit. Searching through the bot's edit history finds that the previous RFC ID addition was with this 16:00, 10 October 2014 edit. That does seem like a long interval between RFC additions. While the bot account was making edits, it appears that this particular bot program was down, or was there something in the data that was causing the program to get hung up before it made any edits? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Eskimo?

What's up with all the action regarding Talk:Eskimo in this edit history? Wbm1058 (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Wbm1058: It was an invalid value in the first positional parameter of {{rfc}}. These edits by WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) should have fixed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, strike that. Waid did fix a problem, but it was not the problem. The problem began when Elvey (talk · contribs) added this section to WP:VPP, which Legobot assumed was an actual RfC and not the pointer to one; it then made this edit. I've made this edit and also this one just in case. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: And there you go. BTW it's pointless making manual edits to bot-updated pages like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted because the bots don't look at what's already on the page - they rebuild the page from scratch according to what they think should be there. This is actually a useful anti-vandal feature. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as the operator of two of Hare's bots myself, I am aware that my reverts of the bot's edits will be futile if the underlying problem isn't fixed. I too corrected a user error, which was causing spurious line items over at WP:RM. Clearly template:Rfc could use some better user error checking logic. We still haven't solved why every edit summary since March at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted includes "Removed: Talk:Eskimo". That page was added by this January 29 edit. It was removed by this February 28 edit. And it keeps getting "removed" by every edit since then. Feb. 28 happens to be the last day of the month—except in leap years. I don't know whether that might have anything to do with it. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what it makes of this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The bot was not successfully closing this RfC, which I just manually closed. – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

question

is the bot made out of lego??? --107.130.160.242 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Legoktm (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That's amazing, what colour? --107.130.160.242 (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot malfunction?

I'm pretty sure this edit shouldn't have happened. Perhaps there was a mistake with my nomination (although I can't see one at a quick look), but I don't think the MfD process even existed in 1970. --ais523 20:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, do you have a link to the BRFA for the MfD archiving task? I can't find it on the userpage, and knowing how easy BRFAs can get lost (I made a rather high-profile mistake over this once…), it's probably worth tracking it down and adding it to avoid future issues. --ais523 21:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ais523: You have a somewhat unusual signature in that the timestamp is between two of the links. I may be wrong, but I suspect that Legobot only looks for timestamps at the end of the line - after all the links. On a UNIX-based system, times are measured as a count of seconds since 00:00:00, 1 January 1970, so a null time gets converted to 1 January 1970. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Maths problem

Hi User:Legoktm,

Legobot is struggling with RFCs. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology begins with the link to Talk:Artificial intelligence, but then gives the description from Talk:Metacompiler (with no link to that page). Please take a look when you have a moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @WhatamIdoing: The |rfcid= were identical - this is what caused the error, because they must be unique. I am certain that the one on Talk:Metacompiler was the incorrect one, because it was set in this edit by Steamerandy (talk · contribs). I suspect that the {{RFC}} was copied from Talk:Artificial intelligence without blanking or removing the |rfcid=. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. While you're here, would you mind taking a look at the RFC formatting on artificial intelligence? One of the users is convinced that the "question" ought to be replaced by his complaint about the actual question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Ah. I guess you've not connected the RfC at AI with WP:VPM#Help with a difficult editor then. See also User talk:Redrose64#Could you assist?. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

So is the Talk:Metacompiler RFC fixed? There has been no response. I probably did it wrong. My Fault. --Steamerandy (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Steamerandy: Talk:Metacompiler#RFC is being listed correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, and has been for almost three weeks. When setting up a new RfC, you must not copy the value of the |rfcid= parameter from another {{RFC}} template - either leave it blank, or omit it entirely. When the parameter is absent, or if it is present without a value, Legobot will choose a new unique value, and put it in the template. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What's all this then

Hi Lego. An infobox listed at User:Legobot/Infoboxes is scheduled for deletion. Is there anything I still should do or wait for before deletion of Template:Infobox UK property, lest the botiverse collapse upon itself? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

TBH, I don't remember what that page is even for. I think someone on IRC asked for a list of infoboxes so I created it...should be fine to just ignore that that page even exists. Legoktm (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Legobot, I'm trying to change my user name, at first I proposed to change with Zebby, but you told me that I can't use it and that I had to find something else now I wrote Krokamaora and I would like to Know if I can use it. It is very important for me to change the user name, since the one I'm using is too close to my real name. Thank you Nobili Vitelleschi Camilla (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:CHUS errors

@Legoktm: The bot is constantly making errors at WP:CHUS where it labels requesting users as "non-existent" when they do, in fact, exist, and the request is not malformed. Examples include [18] and [19]. Mind getting that checked out? --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 02:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

GA bot missing notifications?

Could somebody have a look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Bot having trouble marking reviews as passed? and advise me as to what I can do to make things work in the future? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

One bot

Hey Legoktm, I'm curious about what the status of the One bot (task list ⁽¹⁾ · logs ^{(actions · block · flag)} · botop ^{(e · t · c)} · contribs · user rights) is... According to the user page attached:

Bot Task	Status	Description	Activity
Task 31	Status Unknown.	One bot (see box below)	-Inactive

Showing me that the status is unknown, the RfA doesn't exist, and it is inactive, but the page history of Wikipedia:Dashboard/Relisted AfD debates shows it is running up to once an hour updating that page. The reason I wanted to know what the status was, is because I've modified the {{Relist}} template to accept a 3rd unnamed parameter that will allow for the number of relists to be input and if there are 3 or more relists, it adds the discussion to Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times. The update to the AfDcloser script that I've requested be made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js will automatically populate and make use of that parameter and when the discussion is closed it is designed to remove those tracking categories from the discussion. I understand that the Category:Relisted AfD debates from close discussions is one of the tasks legobot took over from One Bot, and thought you might like to update the bot for this additional new category. Also, though you might like the bot to add a new collapsed subsection to Wikipedia:Dashboard/Relisted AfD debates for "Multiple Relists" or "Tough Calls" or something like that. Anyways, happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone else added that to the page, it's all in 33. The bot is currently running in maintenance mode, meaning I don't have time to add any new features except for fixing breakage. I will happily review any pull requests though. Legoktm (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know Legoktm, I've updated your table accordingly. I'll see if I can't make a pull request for the change I had in mind. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about archived pages

So User:Lowercase sigmabot III archived a discussion that still had an active RFC tag on it before the 30 days was up, and Legobot removed the tag shortly after here ([20]). Is your bot designed to remove RFC templates from pages in archives? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Legoktm (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, they shouldn't be archived as long as an RFC tag is there, but that's not really your issue. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oiyarbepsy, it's really not his issue. The bot does exactly what is suppose to do, archive discussions that aren't receiving any more attention. If there is a particular discussion that you see has slow and sporadic responses from editors and it is an RfC that you think shouldn't be archived yet, I suggest tagging it with {{subst:DNAU|number of days}} which I know the Miszabot use to respect, know for a fact that OneClickArchiver respects, and am fairly sure that lowercase sigmabot III respects as well. Legoktm, can you confirm that for sure please? Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, then, I'd say the DNAU template should be in the RFC template, if feasible. RFCs should get their full thirty days regardless of whether they are receiving comments actively. Whether an RFC should end early is not the kind of thing a bot should decide, only humans should be making that call. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• I brought it up at Template talk:Rfc Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I commented there. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• The bot isn't ending the RfC, it is just archiving it when it becomes inactive. It's technically still open to comments on the archive page and if there is a spark of interest, it is unarchivable until officially closed. Even RfCs that have their tags removed after the 30 days that are still on-going and receiving comments are open until an uninvolved editor officially closes it. The 30 days is usually just a rough guideline, they can be shorter or longer, but an editor decides that, the bot has nothing to do with it. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• "if there is a spark of interest, it is unarchivable until officially closed." - I don't understand this comment, since you are talking about discussions that are already archived, and were therefore obviously not unarchivable. And with bots removing the RFC tag, no one knows that the discussion is hidden there. That's the exact same thing as ending a discussion, meaning an RFC was ended by purely by bots with no human request that they do so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not how WP:RfCs work. They are not formally closed until wrapped in a set of templates such as {{Archive top}} RfC content {{Archive bottom}}. Them being moved to an archive page does not close them. and by unarchived I mean anyone can simply move them back from the archive page to the main talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    • In theory, but in real life, more than half are never formally closed, including those that are never archived. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    • And again, discussions never continue while in archives and are rarely pulled out of the archives. Your arguments aren't reflecting what really happens, but what you imagine could happen. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Updating

Hi, would it perhaps be possible for the bot to start updating this page again? Last update was late in 2013... Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)