User talk:Ladsgroup/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

ap.google is dead since 2008

These are the two way to fix this:

1. If a second ref already exists for the same thing, just remove the ap.google one
2. Otherwise google search and replace. Usually it is the first choice. Remove the dead link notice too.

Examples: [1], [2].

Due to complexity we need something semi-manual. A bot can't handle all the various cases. Estimated number of pages: 900. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Per Bgwhite canadianpress.google is dead too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Magioladitis: What do you think of making a gadget? I know how to build the one to solve this :) :)Ladsgroup^overleg 04:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to help! -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I wish I was born with the brains that Amir or one of the other smart programmers have around here. But then again, you can't teach an old dog a new trick... My first language I used for a long time was FORTRAN. Bgwhite (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA 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/Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA 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. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

OCLC

I also need you to clean up OCLC numbers as I did here. The worldcat external links should be replaced by the template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Tricky [3]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me see what I can, I'm currently cleaning up Template:Cite doi too :)Ladsgroup^overleg 10:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot and blank PMID pages, etc

Hi Amir, Dexbot is not dealing well with cases where PMID citation templates have been blanked, which happened (for example) at proprioception due to this edit. I've gone through AnomieBOT's contributions down to the morning of two days ago (UTC) to find other similar cases; I hope I've caught most of them. Also, "fixations" in the edit summary should be changed to "fixes", because "fixations" usually refers to something else. Graham87 08:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I fixed the bot, thank you for telling me :)Ladsgroup^overleg 10:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Confused edit summaries

Re: [4] – wikt:fixation doesn't mean what you think it means.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, people told me that already and I fixed it, thank you for telling me. It won't happen again :) Best :)Ladsgroup^overleg 22:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot in Watchlist

Hi. Thanks for your fixes using Dexbot. Is there any way they can be made not to show up in my watchlist, please? Dexbot's edits are so numerous that I'm losing track of other editors' edits. Thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you. You can hide edits of bots. There is an option for that in watchlist but if you can't do that (e.g. to check edits of other bots) I don't have anything else to offer. Besides edits of my bot will finish very soon :) Best :)Ladsgroup^overleg 00:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; unfortunately that flag also hides subsequent edits by non-bot editors. I'll just wait. Once again, thanks for your work. fgnievinski (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Came by to thank for the edits too. @Fgnievinski: You're look for Hide bots. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot leaving template variables

I've been cleaning up template variables that dexbot leaves behind. Examples: [5] [6] [7]. |authorlink= seems a popular parameter to leave on in. I've cleaned up ~30 in the past two days. They have all appeared when replacing the doi cite template. Bgwhite (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Another issue. There were 348 articles today that had the article's title as a wikilink in the article. Examples: [8] [9] [10] Magioladitis' Yobot cleaned them all up today. Bgwhite (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks for picking these issues, the bot only dumps what is in subpage of Template:Cite doi and Template:Cite pmid and problems are coming from there, most of them are easily fixable and are formatting issues, easily can be done :)Ladsgroup^overleg 15:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Not doing some substitutions

In this edit it did not actually do any pmid substitutions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antibody&type=revision&diff=675387465&oldid=673578910. This might be related to white space in the {{cite pmid}}. Also, don't forget to do {{cite jstor}} which is just a {{cite doi}} wrapper and the obscure {{cite hdl}}. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I fixed this kind of edits, won't happen again. I will do that too, Thank you for telling me :) :)Ladsgroup^overleg 07:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot and doi

I noticed that Dexbot is not correctly handling doi templates that included bot instructions such as {{bots|deny=Citation bot}}. Dexbot is placing the bot instructions on the pages that previously used {{cite doi}}, which results in the bot instructions being applied to the pages that used to use the citation, rather than just the page containing the citation. See, for example, this edit. —RP88 ^(talk) 00:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, If I understood you correctly, I should remove {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} from new pages. Is it what you mean? :)Ladsgroup^overleg 15:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot should not move any use of {{bots}} (no matter what the parameters) from doi subpages into pages that use the {{cite doi}} template when it removes a use of {{cite doi}}. Ideally dexbot should also fix its earlier edits where it has already placed a {{bots}} tag on pages from which it removed {{cite doi}} templates. —RP88 ^(talk) 17:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I see, I will fix it for next run (this one finished) and if I have time I remove the added ones (probably by hand, I get the list from bot though) :)Ladsgroup^overleg 07:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the number of pages that need fixing is large, but if the list is large, and you decide to do the fixes manually, and you post the list somewhere, I would be happy to help you make the fixes. —RP88 ^(talk) 17:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

All of possible mistakes are:

• Global warming
• Global warming
• DNA
• Xenon
• Fluorine
• Fluorine
• Homosexuality
• Climate change
• Lipid
• Paracetamol
• Paracetamol
• Avian influenza
• Avian influenza
• Reliability of Wikipedia
• Reliability of Wikipedia
• Milankovitch cycles
• Little Ice Age
• Planetary boundaries
• Organophosphate
• Influenza A virus subtype H7N9
• List of organisms named after famous people
• Optical properties of carbon nanotubes
• Eastern spadefoot toad
• Leptobrachium boringii

I check them all by hand, It's not much. :) Best :)Ladsgroup^overleg 07:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

These ones had problem and I fixed them:

• Global warming
• Avian influenza
• Milankovitch cycles
• Little Ice Age
• Organophosphate
• Influenza A virus subtype H7N9
• List of organisms named after famous people <-- very interesting list by the way
• Eastern spadefoot toad
• Leptobrachium boringii

It's done now :) Best :)Ladsgroup^overleg 07:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the BAG approval for this task. Where is it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 4 Thanks :)Ladsgroup^overleg 07:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot removing cite doi templates

Hi,

I don't know where the right place to object to this is, but the removal of the cite doi templates that Dexbot has started doing on a widespread basis is quite disruptive. The cite doi templates are very useful and lead to clear, easy-to-work-with references. In one edit, Dexbot added 20 KB to Milky Way with no evident gain except clutter throughout the source of the article. Can this be stopped? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Please read Template:Cite doi. There is community consensus for deprecating these kind of templates. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 14:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, one editor determined that there was a consensus over a year ago, and this change is getting forced upon those of us who don't follow that talk page much too late to effectively challenge that misinterpretation of consensus. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Because no one was willing to take this step. If you don't like it, you can start an RFC and if it was successful fell free to revert edits of my bot but in the mean time I worked based on community consensuses :)Ladsgroup^overleg 14:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ashill I opposed this for more than a year then eventually changed my mind. Some people may still oppose this. I restored the latest discussion to the Cite doi template - you can read it there. I think that would be the place to post an RfC.

It is a complicated issue. If you need help calling for additional comments, then I might assist you. I think the "cite doi" template talk page would be the best place for more discussion. Consider checking over what has already been said, if you have not already. The narrative may not be so clear to track but this is a discussion that went on for a long time. There is not universal support for removing these templates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Yes, I had read the discussion in the archives at Template talk:cite doi. I'm not sure I have the stomach to get involved in what I'm sure will be a protracted discussion, but having pages I edit changed wholesale for the worse (from an editor's point of view; neutral from a reader's) a year after the discussion was (erroneously, IMO) closed makes this bureaucratically entrenched. I guess I will bring it up there. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ashill There is no need to commit deeply to a discussion. Write 2-3 sentences, try to make a simple request, and let's see what happens. I think there is less bureaucracy here and more being bold. I think that people would comment more if requested. If you need help posting the RfC let me know, but I still need you to ask for whatever comments you want. Ping me if you need something. I will cross-post to WikiProject Medicine when it is up. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Bluerasberry. It's partly knowing myself; I don't tend to be good at dropping out of discussions once I've said my piece. :) The problem is that when I challenged the boldness, I was told that consensus is established and that I should take one of the bureaucratic approaches to establish a new consensus (when, from my reading, it's abundantly clear that there was no consensus to begin with) while the bot's difficult-to-reverse-later damage would continue. But I have now brought this up at Template talk:cite doi. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

one way to keep the clean articles is to put the references in the {{reflist}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue of tidy wikitext versus source-text integrity has been discussed ad nauseum without a satisfactory decision. wp:LDR are widely disliked in large articles. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ladsgroup: I've started a discussion at Template talk:cite doi. I ask you to suspend the bot's large scale substitution of these templates while that discussion is ongoing. Edits like what the bot is doing are essentially impossible to undo if a significant number of other edits happen in the meantime, so the suggest to undo the bot's edits later on is not helpful, unfortunately. Ordinarily, when there's a large-scale bot action after a discussion in a place that is relatively narrow, the bot operator starts with a small scale set of edits to see if there's opposition, since actually editing articles makes editors who wouldn't otherwise see the discussion aware of the situation. Did that happen here? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 02:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverse all the edits now the consensus of Luddites is not real consensus. 166.176.57.125 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. all references should be given with a concrete way and not by creating dozens of subpages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

just because you don't get how to find these references doesn't mean we should progress backwards. 166.176.57.150 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, thanks to trying to implement the consensus at cite doi. I think that there's consensus to deprecate template:cite isbn based on this discussion but I'll leave it up to you on whether you want to jump in there. There's a parallel discussion I have about the orphaned ones for ISBN at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Orphaned_cite_isbn_subpages and I suspect we may come back to the orphan ones from Dexbot's actions later. Did your bot keep a list of which DOI templates it went though? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  Hey, I don't have it but I can get list of orphan subpages of cite doi very easily for you (either by a SQL query or a bot) :)Ladsgroup^overleg 15:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

it is now closed with deprecate. But to reduce disruptive edit claims; you should probably limit to pages with three or less {{cite pmid}} or {{cite doi}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

please do {{cite hdl}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Dexbot adding article's title wikilinked in text

See this edit for Edward Mellanby. It wikilinked Edward Mellanby. Did the same thing 20 other articles today too. Bgwhite (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

technically speaking, the bot did not add it, the bot just made it explicit. Yet another reason that this edit was a good thing,. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

science

When did science started? Emirexo (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Changing others' usernames

I think you better return from your wiki-break. Your account has suddenly started changing usernames of other editors. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

an example please to help him out. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay and AManWithNoPlan: That's what I came here about, very confusing! See here. 220 of ^Borg 10:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears that user:Enthusiast01 (40k+ edits) exists, but User talk:Enthusiast01 redirects to User talk:Enthusiast which is where User talk:Ewawer (only 3 edits) was moved to. WTF? 220 of ^Borg 10:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

نظر

نظر شما من باب برخورد با چنین کاربری با داشتن افکار پوسیده دوران جنگهای صلیبی چیست

بنده خواهان برخورد صریح با ایشان هستم ولی افسوس که زرشک مدتی است آنلاین نشده چون خودش بهتر می توانست اعاده حیثیت بکند. لاپوشانی کردن این نظر مرا خیلی آزرده خاطر میکند باید اقدام سنگینی مقابل اظهارنظر سخیف و بی پروای این کاربر داشت.--Samək^Talk 13:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

در WP:AN مطرح خواهم کرد. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 13:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

جالبه تمام مدیران در برابر لفاظی این کاربر درباره ارامنه ساکت بود این کاربر هر چی از دهنش درآمد به ارامنه گفت چه توهینی هایی که این کاربر به قول خودش آذری زبان به ارامنه نکرد مدیران کجا بودند که چه فرقی بین یک ترک (یا آذری) و ارمنی وجود دارد چرا چون اکثریت مدیران را و دیوانسالاران که ترک (یا آذری) هستند باید این کاربر را حمایت کنند و ساکت باشد شما اگر واقعا دیوانسالارید باید همان ابتدا این کاربر نژادپرست را می بیستید ولی نکرید الان هم یک شاهکار دیگه نجاست اهل کتاب ویکی فارسی کلکسیونی از توهیانت مذهبی و قومی. شده است تا ماجراها تا کجا باید پیش برود

آیا پاسخی منطقی برای جملات بنده دارید برای یه هموطن غیر مسلمان و غیر آذری (ترک) غیر شیعه ... پاسخی برای یک هموطن فارغ از نژاد و مذهب و دین و زبان ...World Cup 2010 (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

محض اطلاعتان من ایرانیم ولی شیعه نیستنم. دل خونی نیز از مسلمانان و شیعیان دارم ولی چنین حرف‌هایی از طرف ایشان ندیده‌ام. اگر ایشان چنین کاری کرده‌اند لطفا به من نشان دهید تا آن را بررسی کنم (من در اینجا مدیر نیستم فقط می‌توانم مطرح کنم) در مورد ویکی‌پدیای فارسی. نجاست اهل کتاب را بررسی خواهم کرد ولی لطفا از همان کارهایی که جمهوری اسلامی می‌کند نکنید. اگر کسی در جایی خطایی کرد و مجازات نشد دلیل آن نیست که مجوز تکرار آن خطا (یا بدترش هر عمل تخلف) را شما دارید. یکی بی‌قانونی می‌کند شما نباید به آن دامن بزنید. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 16:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

در ویکی انگ همیشه با طیفهای مختلف سعی در برخورد سازش پذیر و محافظه کارانه داشتم کاربران ایرانی (ایرانیان داخل و خارج کشور که اصلا در ویکیفا نیستند) و خارجی اینجا خیلی هوشمند و باسواد هستند مثله کاربران ویکیفا نیستند که مرا مانند شما متهم به چه و چه کنند اینجا با 500 تا مقاله و 10000 تا ویرایش یکبار هم حتی تهدید به بلاک شدن نشدم و به هیچ دلیلی مورد تفتیش عقیده قرار نگرفتم هر زمان نیز خواستید و موردی برخلاف قوانین ویکی شد از بنده شکایت کنید بنده مثله شما اهل توهین و دشنام نیستم. فقط مقداری سخنان برحقم تیز و برنده هست و هرکسی طاقت شنیدنشان را ندارد

امیرجان از اینکه تلاش خود را کردین متشکرم، فقط گویا دوستان مدیر ویکی انگلیسی با ترجمه‌گر گوگل به درستی ترجمه نکرده‌اند و کاربر فوق خیلی شانس آورد که به قولی آسوده دررفت چونکه مقداری گفتاری توهین کردند و ترجمه‌گر نیز یحتمل از ترجمه این لغات عاجز شد، بنده با عقاید شما آشنا هستم و تفتیش عقیده نیز نمی‌کنم و عقایدتان برای همه باید محترم باشد و برایتان آرزوی موفقیت دارم. زاپاس نرسی چه عجب اینجا نظر نداده اس:)تSamək^Talk 19:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

امیر گرامی، متاسفانه اینا مشغول سوءاستفاده از اخلاق شما هستند. این مورد در ویکی فارسی رو یادتونه یا نه؟ این کاربر هم همپالگی و یار گرمابه همون یارو است. حس هموطن بودن این جماعت فقط وقتی گل میکنه که بخوان از کسی سوءاستفاده کنند که کار خودشون رو پیش ببره. سیاهه کاری این کاربر هم در ویکی فارسی مشخصه و برخلاف ادعایی که میکند کاربر خوشنامی نیست. نظرات قصارش در صفحات بحث قابل دسترسه و بارها به خاطر رفتار ناهتجارش یا تذکر گرفته و یا جریمه شده است. در اینجا هم بهانه‌اش شیعه است، اما فقط این چند مورد را ببینید تا پی ببرید در عمل با چه کسی طرف هستید. مقاله محبوب این پسرک و دیگر اعضای گروهک در آن وبلاگشان، این هم شاهکارهای دیگر در ویکی داده، این یکی و این یکی. چرندی که میگه جالبه. اصلن هم اهل توهین نیست به قول خودش! فقط در این جستجوی ساده ببینید که چه رفتار نفرت‌انگیزی داره. مردک فکر میکنه چون کسی تا حالا پیگیر رفتارش نشده و حسابش بسته نشده است، کارش بیست بیسته!سم‌ک، اگه کسی ریز و درشت خلاصه ویرایش‌هایت و نظرات قصارت رو دربیاره و گزارش کنه، تاپیک بن میشی. کسی که نمیتونه یه جمله درست به فارسی بنویسه و در اینجا هم از مترجم گوگل استفاده میکنه، رفته بالای منبر و مشغول اظهارفضل و رجزخوانی است. تو و بقیه دوستانت فاضل و دانشمندت بهتره همون سیرکی رو که راه انداختین رو جمع کنید، ویکی فارسی و انگلیسی پیشکش. ریز و درشت کارهاتون رو هم وزارت اطلاعات داره، هم اطلاعات سپاه، هم پلیس فتا و هم چند نهاد امنیتی دیگر. تو هم دلت به همین چیزا خوش باشه پانترک عقده‌ای.--188.158.68.130 (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

نرسی جان بالای 100 مقاله از شهدا و روحانیون انقلابی ایران ساختم مطمئنن هیشکی مثله من اینچنین به انقلاب و اسلام خصوصا تو ویکی انگلیسی ارزش نداده. خودمو برای ساختن مقالات این بزرگواران تحسین می‌کنم. نه مثله شما که اجنبی پرست آریایی هستین و منتظر انتخابات دشمن شکن خبرگان نیز هستم تا بازهم مقالات روحانیون بزرگوار و انقلابی را در این ویکی ساخته دینم را به انقلاب و اسلام ادا کنم.

ادب از که آموختی از بی‌ادبان. هرکجا موردی خلاف بود شکایت کنید تا مورد بررسی قرار گیرد از خودتان تهمت و دشنام ندهید که کار ضعیفان هست جناب نرسی:) بیشتر از این نیز صفحه امیر را مخدوش نفرمایید اگر کاری چیزی نامه ای و شکایتی دارید در جای خود مطرح کنید نه صفحه بحث امیر. بنده از طرف نرسی از شما

امیر گرامی به خاطر مخدوش نمودن صفحه بحثتان عذر میخواهم که چطور یک کاربر مسدود، مطرود و بی ادب این چنین جو را متشنج می کند.--Samək^Talk 09:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

New task

Could you delete almost all of these pages (basically don't delete things like the sandbox):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Cite+pmid%2F&namespace=10

Basically any of these pages that are of the type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_pmid/######### where the number signs are any number from 1 to a pretty big number. None of them are used anymore and no one watches them anymore. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I would love to but I'm not admin (neither my bot) in English Wikipedia. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 08:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Dexbot: Forced Migration error

Dexbot with this edit removed legitimate interwiki links between forced migration and its corresponding Spanish and Portuguese articles and replaced it with ones about a different concept: expulsion. Please rectify whatever part of the bots code that is causing this error. Ebonelm (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty strange since It was a standard script from pywikibot with some little modifications. I check everything again and probably fix everything :)Ladsgroup^overleg 20:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki link errors?

Why is this bot deleting links to legit articles in other languages? Thanks, Markhh (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Interwikilinks should be stored in wikidata. We need to move them to wikidata. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 10:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Interwiki error

I've reverted the edit your bot made here as the relevant interwiki links to not appear to have been migrated to Wikidata yet. Can you check if other changes you've made are similarly affected? Optimist on the run (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I found cause of error. Fixing it is easy but fixing errors caused by the bot might take a while. Let me check :) Thanks for telling me. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 20:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixing should not imply readding the interwikis in English Wikipedia but adding the missing entries in Wikidata. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I take the easiest way of fixing a bot's error, which is revert it. If I wanted to learn how Wikidata works I would have done so, but I have better things to do with my time. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Optimist on the run Ladsgroup will fix properly for us. No worries. -- Magioladitis (talk)

I'm bringing back interwiki conflicts they consists up to one third of interwikis now. So about 2K articles. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 12:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Dexbot reverting itself?

Hey, I just noticed Dexbot removing an interwiki link, but then restoring it 18 hours later with the edit summary "Bot: Fix mistake" on the article Olivia Newton Bundy. Was this intentional? Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, yes :) :)Ladsgroup^overleg 14:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Another substitution pass through the remaining Cite doi templates?

Is there any chance that Dexbot could make a pass through the remaining Cite doi templates and substitute them? As far as I can tell, there are 94 templates that are still transcluded. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I just ran it but the bot couldn't find anything to do. Let me check why :)Ladsgroup^overleg 13:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That's because they are transcluded directly hence my bot can't find them. I'm fixing it and running my bot again. You will have most of them fixed very soon :)Ladsgroup^overleg 13:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done :)Ladsgroup^overleg 14:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There were still three or four that were transcluded in articles as Cite pmid templates for some strange reason, and one that was the target of a template redirect. I handled those. It's much easier to take care of the odd cases when a bot sweeps through and does the overwhelming majority of the work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016

As a past contributor, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?

1. Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
2. Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
3. Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Dexbot and update template

Hello, Dexbot should add the month parameter to the update template when it's using it; at the moment, AnomieBOT has to clean up after it. Thanks. Graham87 04:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, sure. The bot is done this time, I'll do it for the next run. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 10:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Dexbot edit at Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia

Hi, Ladsgroup.

Dexbot added the page lad:Usador:Doc James/Open Textbook of Medicine to our wiki. There is surely no problem with that content, or that this happened. But isn't that sort of thing outside the remit of global bots? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I did it based on James suggestion in Wikimania. You are right that it shouldn't be done via bot flag. It was the default and won't happen again. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to thank you for joining our alliance and working with CHECKWIKI errors #19, #25 and #83. There is a new database dump coming up soon. Be prepared. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! :D :)Ladsgroup^overleg 10:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Sega 3D Classics Collection

An article that you have been involved in editing—Sega 3D Classics Collection—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jotamide (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey User:Jotamide, I never made an edit in that article, and even if I did, it wasn't still appropriate to send me message. People already watched the article and once it's listed other people know about the proposal. Please, don't do it again otherwise it might be taken as canvassing. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 17:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

History of Edmonton

Not sure what this edit is about. 117Avenue (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. We found a bug and reviewed all edits. We might accidentally missed this one. Sorry. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 13:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Bug fix

Pls consider fixing this bug.Rfassbind – talk 23:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, We fixed this bug but we probably missed this one in review. Sorry. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 07:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dexbot Causes Problems with Headings on Fornication article

Twice now I have had to revert changes to the Fornication article because Dexbot is moving all subsections - including Roman Catholicism(!) - under the "Mainstream Protestantism" heading. Can you please investigate and fix the behaviour of the Bot or disable it for the Fornication article? See history log of Fornication article for details. Thanks and cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.129.118 (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Update -I think I found why the Bot was doing that: section headins were all one level too low. Ie, subheadings went from Level 3 to Level 5, skipping Level 4. Hopefully it is okay on that article now I have edited it. 49.182.129.244 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I just run a script that someone else wrote. @Magioladitis: Ideas? :)Ladsgroup^overleg 21:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: ideas? LOL. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Dexbot 8

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 8 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 18:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 8 has moved to a extended trial, please see the page. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Fyi

While clearing Category:Official website missing URL, I noticed several articles (Example) where Dexbot had removed the url in {{Official website}} without either checking if it had been added to Wikidata or adding it to Wikidata. Hopefully this has been fixed now.--Auric talk 11:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The url was in Wikidata at the time but was later removed.[11] I came here about another issue with {{Official website}}. If the url contains an equals sign then an unnamed parameter like in [12] fails because it's interpreted as assigning a value to a parameter whose name is the string to the left of the first equals sign. The general solution is to explicitly add the number of the unnamed parameter like {{Official website|1=http://www.screamkings.com/cgi-bin/release.cgi?sid=LcsA1eQmfQ9SyaGD&gid=features#release_campslaughter}}. {{Official website}} also accepts |url=. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

proxy urls

Could you change all the "url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lapl.org/" URLS on wikipedia to "url=http://search.proquest.com/" that way people who are not at a Los Angeles library can get to them. Also change "url=http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lapl.org/" to "url=http://proquest.umi.com/" I am trying to remove all the proxy's from wikipedia. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: Hey, Do you want me to migrate everything "*.ezproxy.lapl.org" to "*" or just these two? :)Ladsgroup^overleg 09:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

just those two for now. Some things have to do more changes. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are some more that need .proxy.cc.uic.edu removed : AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

www.anb.org.proxy.cc.uic.edu
www.jstor.org.proxy.cc.uic.edu
hdl.handle.net.proxy.cc.uic.edu
www.oxforddnb.com.proxy.cc.uic.edu
muse.jhu.edu.proxy.cc.uic.edu
purl.dlib.indiana.edu.proxy.cc.uic.edu

That should be enough for now. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sure, Just give me some time, probably in the weekend. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 10:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I know it is late, but can you also map http://time-proxy.yaga.com/ http://time.com/ AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm waiting for WP:RfBA :)Ladsgroup^overleg 11:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I see they just approved 200 trial run. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

can your also do proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lapl.org AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 8

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 8 has been approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :)Ladsgroup^overleg 23:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

This one still needs done proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lapl.org AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Done :)Ladsgroup^overleg 19:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ladsgroup. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Bot editing

Hi - I appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia, but noticed that one of your bots is doing unnecessary work. With this edit [[13]], you added quotes to the ref name nba.com. Per Help:Footnotes#WP:REFNAME, quotation marks are optional if the only characters used are letters A–Z, a–z, digits 0–9, and the symbols ! $ % & ( ) * , - . : ; < @ [ ] ^ _ ` { | } ~. So by not doing this optional edit, you will not only save the bot's time and resources, but it will prevent unnecessary edits from showing on numerous watchlists, reducing the time it takes for the other editors to monitor the edits to ensure they aren't vandalism.Timtempleton (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for any inconvenience, see my response above. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 01:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Incessant additions of quotations to references "as per REFNAME"

Quotations around REFNAMEs are not necessary. Not at all. Your bot is giving the reason, "Bot: Changes to ref name per WP:REFNAME", but actually reading REFNAME shows that it's a useless edit. You're essentially spamming the servers with a useless bot running around and adding quotation marks to page after page after page. You do know what Bandwidth is, right? And you do know that Wikipedia is constantly requesting money to keep their servers up, so that Wikipedia can remain free of charge, and ad-free, right?

I don't know how many people are running useless bots like yours, but I'd imagine that if all the useless bots shut down, Wikipedia wouldn't need to request as much funding as often. That might be interesting to look into - "how many useless bots are running, and what's their aggregate bandwidth?"

Anyway, why don't you shut that thing off? Judging by this thing's talk page, it's irritating people, at the very least. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 08:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Knowledgebattle It shut off. Now Dexbot will fix 2,000 pages with errors caused by latest run. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis:: Dexbot ought not to fix anything. Whatever errors it caused should be left alone. It'll probably end up creating more problems, in the process. Just laissez-faire... ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 08:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Knowledgebattle Some refs were broken during the process. They will be fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Section heading problem

Have a look at this edit. Dexbot changed the section heading, but doesn't fix the problem. The bot don't need to change articles when it is not possible to fix the problem automatically. --GünniX (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

References

This edit [14] mentioned WP:REFNAME. But REFNAME says that no quotations marks are required for the reference name to which Dexbot added them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Came here to mention the same thing. Bot is making unnecessary changes to ref names that contain alphanumeric characters and hyphens: [15] — X96lee15 (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Also agree. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. Grateful if you could revert the unnecessary changes. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No reason to revert. Both version work and are fine. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Making optional edits en masse with a bot to change citations to fit an editor's personal preferred style isn't fine. Does this need to go to ANI before you can be convinced to stop? Hchc2009 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hchc2009 bot is already blocked. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I came here after seeing a similar edit - I checked the last five edits the bot made and they all seemd unnecessary as there was no space in the ref name. I've therefore blocked the bot. Any admin can remove the block without reference to me when the bug is fixed. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's first clear out what WP:REFNAME demands. Yobot was blocked for the same reason. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• WP:REFNAME is fine as it it is. This time-wasting bot should be fixed or remain blocked. -- Ham105 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The bot won't resume until the lists are cleared. I already contacted Bgwhite and Ladsgroup. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if following the rules at WP:REFNAME is sufficient to construct a reference name that will work with all the stuff we want it to work with. I am sure that the bot should create an edit summary that points to the rules it is actually following, and those rules should enjoy wide consensus. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis:The bot has resumed and is still making the same errors, e.g. [16]. Please consider reblocking if you have no control over it. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Optimist on the run done. I did not expect the bot to autoresume. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Optimist on the run, Jc3s5h, Ham105, Hchc2009, and CBM: Hey, I was asked to run a bot to add quotation mark when either one of these character is present in the refname: "!", "-", ".", "&", or "'" by User:Magioladitis. You can check and see in that view all edits are okay. These characters was explicitly told to me and I thought it's for future issues (e.g. changes in mediawiki). I'm sorry for any inconvenience :)Ladsgroup^overleg 01:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The page you referenced (WP:REFNAME) says that hyphens are fine, so until that is amended, the bot job needs to be stopped or revised to match the actual rule. One editor's opinion is not a justification to run a bot job on numerous articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's already stopped. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 02:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not only unnecessary, but this edit caused breakage which another bot had to fix. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Redrose64 I already have sent email to Ladsgroup for that particular case. There were a a lot of pages in the list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ladsgroup, CHECKWIKI #104 is now only check for space and # " ' / = > ? \. Please adjust the bot accordingly. This is the exact list of illegal characters in WP:REFNAME. There will be no complains after that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ladsgroup, can you confirm when you will be reverting the recent mass errors caused by your bot? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, sure if you define the errors properly. Most of edits were only unnecessary edits at the most, but it's hard to me to see what was actually harmful edit. Ladsgroup^overleg 07:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As per the discussion above - can you please remove the additional speech marks you had your bot add unnecessarily to a large number of articles. They aren't necessary, were against consensus, and you were acting against our policy on managing bots. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not so sure making another edit to revert an unnecessary edit would be the best approach here. I do whatever BAG members say, since they approved the request. Ladsgroup^overleg 07:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You're responsible for your actions as an editor, Ladsgroup - not the BAG members. I'd be grateful if you'd confirm whether you'll be reverting the mass cosmetic changes you made against consensus using your bot, or not. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If it was a cosmetic edit, then reverting just does another cosmetic edit, so breaking the rules twice. Two wrongs don't make a right. There is no need to do a revert. If the edit caused some damage, then that is a different story. By following what BAG members says, it means following what they have put into policy. That is the first thing one looks at. Bgwhite (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hchc2009, Ladsgroup any errors caused will be fixed by me and Bgwhite and other willing editors probably today. No revert is needed. We catch these already by daily scans. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The only problem I have noticed is the same Redrose64 reported. The case were the ref name has already straight quotes and the bot added (instead of replacing them by double quotes). -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

To confirm - will you be removing the unnecessary speech marks added by the bot en masse? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hchc2009 A minor change of plan: Dexbot will do as you wrote. I just confirmed it. About 2000 pages to fix. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

All pages should have been fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

duplicate reference

Dexbot created a duplicate reference definition with this edit. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Can you check how many got this error so we see if we need to fix it manually or using bot Ladsgroup^overleg 00:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There is Category:Pages with duplicate reference names. I found no others created by Dexbot though. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Section heading and template parameters

In this edit Dexbot inserted wrong characters in a template. Please check for template parameters like url =http:// before fixing heading problems. --GünniX (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I'll fix it soon. Thanks for letting me know Ladsgroup^overleg 13:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It's really hard to fix this but probability of occurrence is so rare that I can neglect it and fix mistakes made later (it seems some already there [17] Ladsgroup^overleg 00:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop DexBot

Changes like [18] are completely pointless, and go against WP:COSMETICBOT. Please fix your bot. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb there is an email exchange between me, NicoV and Bgwhite on the matter. Not Dexbot's fault. The list will be regenerated. There is a discussion of what WP:REFNAME demands exactly. The bot has already stopped. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb Check Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 104 dump. There is(?) a discussion whether characters not in the a-z spectrum allowed as ref names on English Wikipedia. The initial idea was to prevent bad characters.-- Magioladitis (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference names only need to be in quotes if there is a space in the name, otherwise, whether to use quotes or not is up to the editor making the edit. The bot has stopped, you say, but have the edits been reverted? I just did one manually a few seconds ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverting is pointless.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Quotes are not optional if punctuation marks, including ' " / \ # ?, are used. Per mw:Help:Cite The quotes are optional unless the name includes a space, punctuation or other mark. Not only do these cause problems, ie <ref name=foo/foo>...</ref>, but they cause problems with Mediawiki's regexes. We have talked with WMF programmers on what is exactly needed. Also, many people think ' is a quote mark. Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the specifics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite And in fact the one that BMK reverted was actually a good bot edit since the name contained a plus sign. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And the change you made to it, simply removing the plus sign, caused a conflict with an existing refname. Didn't you check the results of your action and see the big red error message in the reflist? I have fixed your "fix". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Can I continue now? :)Ladsgroup^overleg 16:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The bot appears to be making edits to references with names containing only valid alphanumeric characters. See [19], [20], and [21] for examples. Lithopsian (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop this bot from adding quotes to ref names. I work really hard to create ref names that don't need the quotes, as I believe they are unnecessary if the ref name is constructed correctly. Adding quotes to ref names that don't need the quotes is a waste of time and just mess up the citations. It's additional characters that don't need to be added to a page. Please stop this bot! It's making me really mad. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is stopped. I am not a big fan of the quotes either when not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. I saw it here on 13 Dec. And then I'm seeing this garbage over here on the talk page for Footnotes. Sigh. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)