User talk:BattyBot/Archive4

Haiti-related articles

BattyBot, is reverting the "WikiProject Haiti" back to "WikiProject Caribbean |Haiti=yes", and it happened on the Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories, etc. Haiti now has its own primary project. Yobot was doing the same thing. Hope we can resolve this. Thank you. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved at User talk:Yobot#Haiti-related articles. GoingBatty (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Syntax breakage

Stopping the bot; as this edit [1] left broken syntax. I have reverted this for the moment. Please could you confirm that the corresponding rule has either been fixed, or permanently disabled prior to reactivating the bot. Hope it helps, —Sladen (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The penultimate edit made before stoppage has breakage too [2]. Either that is really statistically unfortunate, or there's likely a large amount of breakage…! —Sladen (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sladen: Thanks for stopping the bot. I got too optimistic in trying to fix every kind of piped wikilink in the |format=, which resulted in these two bad edits. I'll check the bot's previous edits to see how pervasive the issues were. I've changed the bot so it will now only fix |format=foo bar and |format=[[foo bar]] followed by a pipe. After the simple parameters are cleaned up, I'll then tackle the rest either by bot or manually. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

GoingBatty, thanks for the reply. BTW, could you clarify what the intended scope of the changes were/are? The edit summaries on both of these refer to {{Infobox television}}, but it appears to be altering other templates too, such as {{cite web}} in the first example. —Sladen (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sladen: The intended scope was only to remove |format= from {{Infobox television}} - see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 41. I found 2 errors in the first 50 edits I looked at, so I'm going to review each of the bot's edits before proceeding. GoingBatty (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

GoingBatty I've had quick flick through the edits from this morning and spotted this [3]; the impact of removing an empty |format= isn't an issue in this case, but would indicate that the rule active on the later batch is still perhaps not operating correctly. Do you have a link to the source code, perhaps I can help track down the bug with the scoping? —Sladen (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sladen: Thanks for your generous offer, but this is part of AWB's general fixes: "Removes |format= field with null value when URL is HTML page". It seems that Magioladitis finished clearing out the category. GoingBatty (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Found this and fixed it. Damn, I forgot this would stop the bot.-- Magioladitis (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Thanks for fixing that article I'm still going through all the edits in reverse alphabetical order, and haven't gotten that far yet. Don't worry about stopping the bot to report an error. GoingBatty (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Chamkaur

Mam please edit Battle of Chamkaur. It is a falsified account.Mughals were not victorious they failed to capture Guru gobind singh.The mughals were 10 lakh in number and Gobind singh had only 40 Sikhs at the eve of the battle so how could be this a victory fr mughal.10 lakh had no match with 40 Sikhs This should be edited result should be gobind singh escaped in place of mughal victory gobind singh escaped unhurt106.192.190.53 (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

BattyBot is a bot, and as such does not change the content in articles. I see you have already tried to discuss this change on Talk:Battle of Chamkaur You may want to post a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian history and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to have knowledgeable editors participate in the discussion and work to improve the article. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Going outside scope

BattyBot is going beyond the scope of actions listed on its user page and even acting in direct contradiction to the second one on the list (#3), by placing the {{Dead end}} tag where wikilinks are present.

Please adapt this functionality to pay attention to transcluded templates (they might have standard wikilinks for a series of articles, as in this example) and document the functionality.

Those edits should probably not be marked as minor.

--ProtectorServant (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@ProtectorServant: BattyBot is not going beyond the scope of actions listed on its user page - please see User:BattyBot#General fixes. In this case, it's specifically the AWB Tagger portion of general fixes which appends {{Dead end}} if the article has no wikilinks. As you pointed out, the wikilinks are only in the transcluded templates, not in the article itself. I see you already entered a bug report for this, so we'll see if the AWB developers make an exception for {{List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, Description}} (like they did for this and this and this and this).

I manually fixed the ambiguous date format (and made other fixes), so BattyBot won't revisit the article. I'm wondering if preparsing the list with the auto tagging feature turned off will prevent articles from being tagged when the bot isn't performing its primary function. Thanks for the feedback! GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like they'll add a specific exception, but I think that'll be too narrow (see discussion there).

Still, AWB is meant primarily to assist a human user who retains responsibility for edits, and I don't think a human user would have been likely to make that mistake on that article. I suggest disabling the tag-adding module in Battybot runs, and not marking tag changes as minor. I hope this is helpful! --ProtectorServant (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@ProtectorServant: I am glad that you received a response so quickly, and will gladly download the newest version when it is released. While I'm not sure that "AWB is meant primarily to assist a human user", I still have to take responsibility for my bot edits. My goal was to fix dates, not to perform an edit that ONLY added a tag. By preparsing the list with the tag-adding module disabled, it will not make edits such as the one you brought to my attention. Per Help:Minor edit#Exceptions, "bot accounts usually mark their edits as minor in addition to the 'bot' flag."

I'll spend some more time making manual fixes to the "List of killings" articles. Per WP:CITESTYLE, you may want to make sure all your references have the same date format. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I had gotten that from the top of the AWB page ("AutoWikiBrowser is not an automatic bot—edits made using this software are the responsibility of the editor using it. Although AWB does have an automatic mode enabled for some bot accounts, it normally just assists a human.") Also, while I recognize that bots usually mark their edits as minor, I take that as a simple description of what is (which in my view is a natural consequence of the fact that bot edits usually are minor), not any clear statement about what should be. There is a section above that on the same page which says more clearly and directly that "Adding or removing visible tags" should not be marked as minor.

Thanks for your constructive edits! --ProtectorServant (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hope you like it.

Vengatesan at Integra (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

• The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
• Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

June 21 edits

The edits made on June 21 were accidentally made on my bot account instead of my regular account. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. GoingBatty (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Stopping bot

Stopping bot per discussion at User talk:GoingBatty#Removing p from ref pages parameter. GoingBatty (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Soyuz T-14 Broke By BattyBot

This edit completely broke the Soyuz T-14 page. I undid it; if you want the page to be modified, it might be best to do it by hand.—chbarts (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Chbarts: Could you please be specific and help me understand what you mean by "completely broke the page"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: It must have been a fault on my end, as my reversion was reverted and nothing bad happened. Basically, I saw a lot of red text on the page from templates which were supposed to have returned tables but didn't. As I look at the page now, I can't reproduce the fault, and as I look at the edit I linked to, I can't reproduce there, either. Must have just been a weird transient glitch.—chbarts (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Pravin Darade

I have updated this Wiki Profile. Please Let me know i have followed all the Prosecure - DrunkenMonkey3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@DrunkenMonkey3: Since your question is not related to this bot's edits, I have replied on your talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Courtship disorder for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Courtship disorder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtship disorder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — James Cantor (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)