Open main menu


Contents

BAG Status questionEdit

Hi. In the bot's edits to WP:BAG/Status, what is the usage of |class="MostRecentIsBAG" - is there a user script that relies on this? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It was requested in User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 2#Wikipedia:BAG/Status. Anomie 18:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Anomie: I figured out why it was requested - see User:Josh Parris/common.css. I copied that CSS, and it works great, but I was wondering if you could separately add |class="MostRecentIsOp" when the most recent editor of the BRFA is the operator, so I know whether I should check it for any threads to reply to or not. Would this be doable? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure. Anomie 12:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Anomie: Thank you so much --DannyS712 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Anomie: I think there was a bug in Special:Diff/l890644267 --DannyS712 (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Minor edits, like Special:Diff/prev/890643476, aren't counted for the highlighting. That's intended to allow BAGgers to make a minor edit to a BRFA without it being misleadingly counted in the "Last BAG editor" column; I'll have to think what makes most sense in this situation. Anomie 18:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Anomie: Sorry, the link was Special:Diff/890644267. Thanks for figuring out the cause - maybe set it so that if its MostRecentIsOp, and the op edits again with a minor edit, leave the class as Op? (Same could apply to most-recent is bag, but that is a different question). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

DRV stalledEdit

Could somebody take a look at WP:DRV. The closed discussions are not getting archived. Some are 10 days old. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

In what way is it not working as intended? Discussions within the last 14 days are listed as "recent" if not empty, and that's what I see there. Anomie 21:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Normally, discussions migrate out of Recent discussions into Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive. That's not happening. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, wait, you're saying they're supposed to sit in Recent for a full 14 days? I thought it was faster, but maybe I'm just mis-remembering things. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Today's discussion always goes in "Active". Any in the past 7 days that aren't empty also go there. Any non-empty discussions between 7 and 14 days old go in "Recent", as do any older days that still have unclosed discussions. Anomie 02:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

AnomieBOT not workingEdit

@Anomie: There are a number of tasks that AnomieBOT has stopped processing. Toolforge reports a status of "job missing" for:

  • TagDater
  • CategoryLister
  • NobotsHallOfShame
  • PERTableUpdater
  • SourceUploader
  • TaskRedirectChecker
  • WatchlistUpdater

Just wanted to let you know in case you weren't aware. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the point?Edit

This bot caused me to lose half an hour of work because of an edit conflict.
What is the point of fixing/adding that totally useless "date" parameter in the {{cn}} template? Could you please just stop doing that?
Or could you at least avoid editing any article that has been edited in the last 24 hours, to reduce the risk of edit conflicts?
Thanks, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jorge Stolfi: (talk page stalker) the date is used so that Category:Articles with unsourced statements can be sorted by month, like most other backlog categories. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: And ... what is that good for?
How many "habitual" editors does Wikipedia have, and how many of them are looking at that list? (350,000 articles in backlog, growing 5000-10000 per month; each with one or more {{cn}} tags...)
What could such editors do about it? Why should a {{cn}} that was pasted into some article in 2007 deserve more or less attention than one posted in 2019?
Realistically, a {{cn}} tag will be replaced by a source ref only if some editor who has interest in that article feels bothered enough by that tag to fix it. So the best thing one can do to attack that backlog (which obviously will only keep growing, no matter what) is to attract more editors; and the best way to achieve that is to make articles easier to edit --- for example, by getting rid of all templates, like {{cite}} and {{sfrac}}, that affect only the looks of the article (often for the worse).
Grump. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
If you really want to change the longstanding consensus that maintenance tags should be dated, you'd have to take it to WP:VPR or the like. Same for if you want to propose getting rid of all templates. <sarcasm>Good luck with that.</sarcasm> Anomie 03:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I rather doubt you actually lost any work. More likely you just had a situation where you were asked to merge your edit with the bot's, although since it was a bot you could probably have gotten away with just overwriting the bot's edit entirely and letting the bot redo it if it still applied. If whichever editor you were using really did lose your edit entirely, you should file a bug in the appropriate place. If you're routinely making series of edits and wish to try to avoid other editors (including AnomieBOT's tag dating) causing conflicts, you might try using {{In use}}. Anomie 03:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did a mistake -- saved my text elsewhere, closed the tab to look at the history to see what was the conflict and how to try again. Then I found that I had saved the wrong text. But still, apart from my mistake, the edit conflict was a totally unjustified disturbance. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    • You're welcome to believe whatever you want, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable. Continuing to assert that belief here, though, is not likely to accomplish anything useful. More useful would be using {{in use}} if your editing pattern is prone to conflicts. Anomie 11:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Bot restoring malware-infected URL'sEdit

Heads up - the bot is restoring references that I removed due to the domain being hijacked / attempting to spread malware. See: [1] [2]. SQLQuery me! 02:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop leaving orphaned references and it won't do that. Anomie 02:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

orphaned refsEdit

Thanks! --Saippuakauppias 11:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, too. ◄ Sebastian 21:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Garcinia indicaEdit

In rescuing an orphaned ref with this edit, an IUCN reference for a macaque was added! (The species is a fruit tree). I've updated the reference. Thanks Declangi (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the fix-upEdit

I spent a few hours, gave up, and returned to find my citation fixed. Thank you. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

...And your bot fixed a missing sig by a new editor. Thank you. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope this didn't mess-up the bot. Sorry. -- 09:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC) It worked, again. Thank you. I guess this is routine for you. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Error in CFD clerkEdit

Just noticed this now, but in [3] the bot didn't remove the ==== NEW NOMINATIONS ==== at the top --DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/895863033 removed the <!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->. The bot is normally ok at dealing with edits that screw up the header on the current day and on old days, but this particular screw-up occurred during the current→old transition with the result that the bot didn't find the heading+comment it was looking to remove and also didn't detect it as a screw-up because the header wasn't supposed to have that heading+comment anymore (it implicitly considered the heading as part of the page content instead). Anomie 21:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Anomie: ahh, thanks for the explanation --DannyS712 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Satisfya songEdit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfya_Song help this page Pariwarking (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Baby, I'm in Love article.Edit

I didn't understand why you put in the talk page of the Baby, I'm in Love that it was deleted in 2012. I know it was, but that means that we have to vote again to keep the page? The article was deleted before because it doesn't have sources, now it has, and reliable sources actually.--88marcus (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

All it means is that an article at that title was previously deleted. If it was deleted for no sources and now it has sources, you're probably good. Anomie 20:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.--88marcus (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

ITNTaggerEdit

Similar to OnThisDayTagger, can a ITNTagger also be made, check bolded links and tag, seems doable? --qedk (t c) 17:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems doable. Is there a consensus discussion I could point to establishing that people want a bot for this? And details as to exactly where the bot should look? Anomie 21:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Currently on it. And the bot should look at {{ITN}} for new additions every hour or so. --qedk (t c) 09:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Why change date from "date=December 2009" to "date=May 2019"Edit

I wonder why did your bot do this[4]. Only change is: "date=December 2009" changed to "date=May 2019". Christian75 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Christian75, your link combines two edits. This was the bot's actual edit, which fixed the broken date in the template by replacing it with a known good date. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Ups, Sorry for wasting your time. I think I have done it before, but at least seen other people doing it. It should be more clear in the top imho. But my mistake... Christian75 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

AnomieBot question and CSD G6sEdit

Hello, Anomie,

I have a question that has, frankly, driven me crazy. And it is when I look at the Categories list for Candidates for speedy deletion (which appear in a number of places including Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and CSD category pages), and the number of pages listed doesn't always match the number of pages that the categories contain. I used to think that the category pages were not updating so I'd hit Purge and it didn't make any difference. For example, the counter for Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion is now listed at 14 but there are only 2 pages listed when you check that category.

Today, I was looking at Category:Manually maintained portal pages from March 2019 which was marked as CSD G6 but was not listed in any deletion category. But according the page, it was in the--AHA!--the Hidden categories of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Could CSD G6 categories (and other things like unneeded CSD G8 talk pages) be not marked by hidden categories? Then they are easier to see for deletion. I don't know how this is remedied, as the clean up categories are marked by a {{Monthly clean-up category}} but perhaps the template could be changed. No one but editors see these dated categories any way so I'm not sure why the categories are hidden as if readers would wander into this area. And I guess this could explain the other numerical discrepancies where admins see that there are more pages in the CSD categories but don't know how to get to them or what pages they are. Thank you.

And there are other, out-dated maintenance categories that the bot ignores like Category:Deprecated templates from April 2019 which should have been CSD G6 but was not tagged. It would be great if AnomieBot tagged all outdated categories for uncontroversial deletion. I can produce a semi-complete list for you if you'd like. Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The fact that certain categories are hidden categories has nothing to do with the counts being inaccurate. Unfortunately as more caching and background updating of things are added to improve frontend performance, that also seems to lead to more issues with cache invalidation and delayed or missed updates.
As for Category:Deprecated templates from April 2019, according to Template talk:Monthly clean-up category/core#Edit request it's intentional that empty monthly categories for the previous month aren't automatically CSDed. The automatic CSD logic for that April category would have activated in June. Anomie 03:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

CSB linkEdit

A while back, I asked about adding {{csb link}} to the list of college sports links that are processed and you rightly pointed out that it wouldn't see much use at that point. Now, softball has more season pages (See Category:Excessive uses of csb link for current places it can help, and note many have already been fixed manually) and more are added each season, so it would be helpful to have it run as well. Would you add it to the list? Billcasey905 (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done Anomie 21:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch game list ref nameEdit

I would like to let you know why I deleted this reference tag, because there isn't any other reference tag with that name, or there is not a reference with other Japanese games that are listed under one tag. Now if there were multiple games that were announced with that game included, then we would include a reference tag just with a different name. I would just like you to know of this situation in the future. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Zacharyalejandro, first off, this is a bot page, so it cannot respond. Second off, clearly the reference was being used in more than one place, since the bot rescued the reference name from the previous revision. If one reference can be used in multiple places, it should be. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Skirrid InnEdit

Why did your bot edit my stay at Skirrid inn Rcase666 (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The bot did no such thing; a human removed your unsourced WP:COI edits. See the article's history page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Meerut district - FixedEdit

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Meerut district, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about census2011.co.in. This probably means someone didn't properly clean up after themselves when blacklisting the link and removing existing uses, but a human needs to double-check it. The attempted changes were:

  • Meerut district revision 899690640:
    • Rescued "cen11a" from rev 899680452
      Removed in revision 899680831 by Sitush (talkcontribslogs) with comment "/* Demographics */ also not reliable, and we do not use the provisional official figures" (removed 1373/25564 bytes, 5%)
    • Rescued "cen11c" from rev 899680452
      Removed in revision 899680831 by Sitush (talkcontribslogs) with comment "/* Demographics */ also not reliable, and we do not use the provisional official figures" (removed 1373/25564 bytes, 5%)
    • Rescued "c11" from rev 899680452
      Removed in revision 899680831 by Sitush (talkcontribslogs) with comment "/* Demographics */ also not reliable, and we do not use the provisional official figures" (removed 1373/25564 bytes, 5%)
    • Rescued "cen11b" from rev 899680452
      Removed in revision 899680831 by Sitush (talkcontribslogs) with comment "/* Demographics */ also not reliable, and we do not use the provisional official figures" (removed 1373/25564 bytes, 5%)

You might also use {{subst:User:Anomie/uw-orphans|1=rm diff|2=fix diff}} to let the remover know, if their edit summary indicates they were specifically removing the blacklisted ref. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT 22:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Checked. It was a test of the recent blacklisting, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    Sitush, so is this issue resolved, and can we add "- Fixed" to the header so the bot knows it's good to go? Primefac (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to do whatever is necessary here. The issue is resolved at the article. I've never seen a message like this one before, although I am aware of the bot doing its stuff. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Oddity with Gloria Pasqua-CasnyEdit

The article Gloria Pasqua-Casny has a notability tag that still hasn't been dated for almost 4 months. Four months already, and the bot still hasn't dated that tag yet! The bot should try to also date maintenance tags that haven't been dated for a while. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The bot skips articles where the latest edit is tagged "possible libel or vandalism". In this case it would probably be simplest to just date it yourself, although any other edit (that doesn't result in the same situation) should allow the bot to handle it. Anomie 03:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Marina KuwarEdit

The "NewArticleAFDTagger" created a talk page for a currently deleted page (i.e. page moved into draftspace without a redirect) at Talk:Marina Kuwar. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have marked it for deletion, as it is dependent on a deleted page. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, the bot shouldn't have done that. Apparently I forgot to check that the page wasn't deleted again before the bot saw the creation.   Done Anomie 11:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

ShonenEdit

Dude stop bringing back that stupid link made by Deb Aoki! It’s not a credible source anymore. Plus Deb Aoki hasn’t been correct in a while now. LMFAO SG1994! (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@SG1994!: The user you are trying to mention is a robot and not a human. Please do not write your messages in a tone intended for a human.
The bot was not readding a removed reference; rather, this was part of its OrphanReferenceFixer task, which repairs broken references. Your edit here removed the contents for the reference name "about.com"; however, that reference was still being used elsewhere in the article. You can see this in the first entry of the References section of the article, where a cite error message is being displayed because the contents of the named reference no longer exist (see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text). The bot was simply readding the named reference in order to fix the error. It does not do this based on prejudice or because it is biased towards you and your edit; it was simply fixing a technical issue on the page.
Looking at your edits in the page history, you should consider starting a discussion on the talk page of the article in order to obtain a consensus rather than edit warring. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:BAB-A has too many transclusionsEdit

In an effort to prevent disruption, I refuse to subst templates that have over 100 transclusions unless they are listed at User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. Please either edit the template to remove it from Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, manually subst the existing transclusions, or add it to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force to let me know it is OK to subst them. Possibly added by User:Fredddie at 2019-06-16T13:18:24Z. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT 13:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:BAB-B has too many transclusionsEdit

In an effort to prevent disruption, I refuse to subst templates that have over 100 transclusions unless they are listed at User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. Please either edit the template to remove it from Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, manually subst the existing transclusions, or add it to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force to let me know it is OK to subst them. Possibly added by User:Fredddie at 2019-06-17T01:47:41Z. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT 02:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in 1999 Teen Choice AwardsEdit

When trying to fix orphaned refs in 1999 Teen Choice Awards, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about awardsandwinners.com. This probably means someone didn't properly clean up after themselves when blacklisting the link and removing existing uses, but a human needs to double-check it. The attempted changes were:

You might also use {{subst:User:Anomie/uw-orphans|1=rm diff|2=fix diff}} to let the remover know, if their edit summary indicates they were specifically removing the blacklisted ref. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT 08:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ~ Maintenance tags ~Edit

Thanks Bot, for waiting until after I took of the {GOCEinuse} tag on Dana White before doing your maintenance ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "AnomieBOT".