User talk:AnomieBOT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


AnomieBot question and CSD G6s[edit]

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 It would be great if AnomieBot tagged all outdated categories for uncontroversial deletion.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 link[edit]

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 name[edit]

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 Inn[edit]

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 - Fixed[edit]

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-Casny[edit]

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 Kuwar[edit]

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)

Shonen[edit]

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 transclusions[edit]

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 transclusions[edit]

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)

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)

False positives for AnomieBOT III[edit]

There are a few false positives that keep appearing on the user space broken redirects list that are not broken. They are:

These are all actual redirects and it would be nice if they were kept off the broken redirect list. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Those are broken, for at least some definition of "broken", as illustrated by the fact that clicking those links takes you to the redirect page instead of the nominal target.
HTH. Anomie 12:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure that I follow. User:Meisam.fa redirects to User:Meisam, User:JackLantern and User:Mvvnlightbabe both redirect to User:Mvvnlightbae. None of those target pages were deleted which is usually the problem with broken redirects. The redirects on the original pages seem to be formed properly (#REDIRECT [[Target page]]). I understand about the cross-wiki redirect and why the bot might not register that as valid.
But, you know, I don't need to know exactly why the bot has identified these as broken redirects, I'll just to continue to ignore them when I see them on the broken redirect user pages list. They also appear on the Special:BrokenRedirects (except for User:Thryduulf/R to other wiki for some reason). I just thought there might be some quick solution. Thank you for your response. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Meisam and User:Mvvnlightbae don't exist here on the English Wikipedia. The content you see on those pages is taken from meta:User:Meisam and meta:User:Mvvnlightbae, courtesy of Extension:GlobalUserPage (see also WP:Global user page). That extension also makes the links blue, but doesn't manage to make the pages "exist" for redirects to be considered not broken. Anomie 21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

D-400[edit]

Hi, Anomiebot is busy in fixing the road codes. Thanks.However with D.400 something goes wrong (as seen here). Can you please check it ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess by "fixing road codes" you're referring to substing of {{TUR-D}}? What is wrong there, that wasn't wrong with the original {{TUR-D}}? Anomie 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nedim Ardoğa: substituting {{TUR-D}} unified a couple of styles that were in use. D-100 and D-100, which are common on articles that have been imported from other-language projects have been replaced with D.100.{{Jct}} simply displays the image graphic and plain text and is used on thousands of articles. –Fredddie 21:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by AnomieBOT[edit]

AnomieBot made these edits to the Comparison of instant messaging clients article. I can't quite figure out what it was trying to do, but the result was creating about eight duplicate reference definitions for the notes in that table. I've rolled back the edit. If we can understand what it was trying to do, maybe we can find a fix that isn't so disruptive. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Reflist wrapper templates confused the bot, fixed now. I'd appreciate it if you avoid hyperbole like "disruptive". Anomie 17:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix! The edits have no visible effect on the article, other than to add errors and obscure previously working references. After my reversion, by the way, the bot left an explanation of its actions on my talk page which appears to be incorrect. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Uhoh! Looks like the bot just re-did the erroneous edit, and the errors it created in the notes section of the article have reappeared. Why does the bot repeatedly make the same mistake, and how can it be stopped? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
You should check your timing. The "re-did" happened at 16:34 UTC, while the fix was at 17:15 and your comment here was at 17:36. Anomie 13:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

9ff[edit]

Dear user @Anomie:, Thanks for your bot, it is really helpful! However, I have to tell you about it's edits on the 9ff article, an article I have just expanded. About the tags it placed: 1)( [self-published source?]) : I agree this is the former website of the company archived, but I used it just as information, the content on the article is modified by me When other sources were avelaible, I used them also, they were also claming the same things. 2) ([dubious – discuss]) : To the specific facts that these two were the fastest cars of their time there is no doubt: It is not comfirmed only by the company's former website (if it was only by this it would be bias), but from major automotive websites all around the world (not only these I have cited.) Please leave me a message with guidance what to do. Best regards, Enivak (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Enivak: The bot did not add these tags; it only added "July 2019" to them all. If you check the article history, you'll see that the tags were placed by Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs). I suggest you discuss them at Talk:9ff. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If it is like this, sorry then. Enivak (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:9ff#Self-serving and extraordinary claims citing company website. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I found an error and stupidly reverted without reading your message :([edit]

In my defence I'm new and have a HUGE cold... Anyway, linky here, hopefully it won't re-revert, but if it does I'll come back.

Or I'll be sat in a corner hallucinating off cold meds, one or the other...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marasmus&type=revision&diff=904803057&oldid=904676246 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue-Sonnet (talkcontribs) 17:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You reverted both the vandalism and the bot's subsequent edit that was triggered by the vandalism, which is exactly what you should have done. Your edit summary incorrectly blamed the bot instead of the vandal, but that's not a big deal. Anomie 20:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Bangladesh[edit]

Hello @Anomie:, please check the references added on the Bangladesh article by Tubslubeamorepersempre in this edit. He added a number of references with names but didn't specify the content of the reference properly. Please fix it, thank you. -- Gridlust (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you asking me to do it, and why on my bot's talk page? Anomie 01:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry i was asking the bot to do it because it usually rescues orphaned references. -- Gridlust (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The bot doesn't need to be asked, it just does it. In the case of Bangladesh, there's a lot for the bot to go through and it has to start over each time someone edits the page, so it might take some time. At a human glance, it looks like much of the content added there was taken from Bengal, so if you don't want to wait for the bot you could just manually copy the references over (checking if any of them are already being used under a different name or are used unnamed). Anomie 13:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for linking me to Bengal, i have copied the references from there and pasted it to Bangladesh. -- Gridlust (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

TfDClerk prematurely removed a discussion from the TfD backlog list[edit]

See this edit: WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9 § Link language wrappers was removed, but it should have stayed there because it hasn't been closed yet. I've re-added it to the backlog to see what the bot will do (I assume the bot will remove it again). Retro (talk | contribs) 16:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep, as I suspected. I suppose I could now go look at the source code, but I have some other stuff I currently want to do. Retro (talk | contribs) 17:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the bot is forgetting to keep the day open if the only unclosed discussions are non-bottable. Unfortuately someone went and relisted that one so I can't use it for testing now. Hopefully the fix I wrote for it works right. Anomie 01:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm unsure if that fixed the problem. I added some entries to the July June 9 page, but the bot didn't list them as old unclosed discussions. What is surprising to me is that it didn't even list the discussion for Template:Example that included {{tfd links}}. Does the bot has some kind of internal database it uses for tracking unclosed discussions, or is there something else I'm missing? Retro (talk | contribs) 21:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Retro: Each time the bot runs, it saves the date of the earliest page it checked that seems like it will need checking again the next time it runs. "Seems like it will need checking again" includes having open sections, having broken sections, or having been edited in the past 24 hours. By the time you started experimenting with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9 (note it was June you were using, not July as you stated above), the bot had already stopped re-checking it and earlier pages (probably since July 1, 24 hours after the last edit to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 7). Anomie 00:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Whoops, good catch on the June/July typo.
I assume the saved date you refer to is $startdate. Can you manually store an earlier date through manually assigning $api->store->{'startdate'} to a correctly-formatted 2019-06-09 date so the fix can be tested? Retro (talk | contribs) 01:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can do that. Anomie 11:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the code works, but it wound up counting the lead section when producing the edit summary so every day checked was listed there. Fixed that. Anomie 13:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Alright, since it seems it tested well, I've removed the test discussions. The bot appears to have handled it correctly. Retro (talk | contribs) 16:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Kasane Airport[edit]

The article Kasane Airport contains a "reference" to g__gl_ m_ps which I find incorrect - I understand there is a consencus locations are sufficiently given in the infobox and should not be repeated. Still when I removed it, this bot put it back, which leaves me confused and frustrated. Please help! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jan olieslagers: I don't think this bot is responsible for the problem since the bot hasn't edited the page for a while, and not since you edited it. It looks like you may have eventually been able to resolve it, though. Retro (talk | contribs) 20:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
To me, it rather looks like I gallantly muddled things up, confusing a couple of nouns proper and all that. None better to cause frustration than one's stupid self! Back to good order now, though, I think. Thanks for follow-up, and excuse me for needless alert. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Sajjad Gharibi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. [FBDB]

On a more serious note, how would the bot detect I was trying to adhere to WP:BLP by removing tabloid journalism citing questionable personal information? And how could it determine that restoring the citation to The Sun is definitely not what I would have wanted? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

All the bot "knows" is that you didn't fully remove all reference to that source and that your partial removal left the article in a broken state. Divining intentions and desires is far beyond it. The most that I can think of that it could possibly do would be to detect a link to WP:BLP (directly or via one of its 120 redirects) in the edit summary and leave the article in its broken state, possibly with a post on the talk page of the article pinging the person who did the removal. Anomie 12:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the only realistic option would be to set up corpuses of data where orphaned references were fixed, split into correct and incorrect, and use a Bayesian filter to determine future cases. But that sounds like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer; this is the only instance I can think of where I have disagreed with the bot rescuing orphaned refs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

POTDPageDeleter[edit]

Can I ask why your bot is deleting old protected POTD templates? In some cases this is killing off attribution history, where an admin has altered the page while it was transcluded and then someone else has copied the edit to the unprotected version. And it's not like it saves any space on the servers, because deleted pages are still retained. I don't really see a valid reason for doing this, and I think the pages should be restored. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Because there was a request and consensus to do so. See Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 7#Unused Templates, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 5, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Old Template:POTD protected/YYYY-MM-DD templates. Chances are admins doing the copying should go the other way, FYI. Anomie 11:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, in most cases maybe they do. But not always. We've discussed the possibility of changing the system to avoid the need for double templates, which would be great, but it's not like the legacy protected ones were doing any harm and we've been doing it that way for more than ten years. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Old Template:POTD protected templates are unused templates that have no possibility of being used and should be deleted per WP:TFD#REASONS point 2. The fact that unused templates with no possibility of use were kept for ten years does not mean that unused templates with no possibility of use should be kept now. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:User PiMem has too many transclusions - Fixed[edit]

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:Andrybak at 2019-07-14T12:30:22Z. 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 13:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done: Special:Diff/906219843 —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

...because titles with en-dashes are hard to type (and resolving the double redirect ...[edit]

Let's take a page like 2019 Australian Open - Wheelchair Quad Singles. The redirect target is 2019 Australian Open, but should now be with en dash 2019 Australian Open – Wheelchair Quad Singles. The bot adds {{User:AnomieBOT/Auto-G8|target=2019 Australian Open – Wheelchair Quad Singles}} which includes the correct target. I know at that time it's probably a good move, but when the page is actually created, it does not look good. Is it possible for (some) bot to actually check if the correct page is created and then redirect to that? I fixed bunch of those on tennis grand slam pages, but I'm sure there's lot more. Another option is not to create a page with hyphen at all, when the en dash version is just a redirect. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Older example is 2016 Wimbledon Championships - Wheelchair Men's Doubles. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
What exactly are you complianing about here? The fact that someone needs to update redirects when splitting an article out of another article? It's not just the en-dash redirects that need that treatment. Anomie 22:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sort tweaks for Wikipedia:BAG/Status[edit]

If you do [1], the BAG column sorts better. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

subst=subst[edit]

Hi, why is this done? Also this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, I think I am responsible for that one. I added the Globalize subpages to the auto substitution list since the subpage are being merged with the main template per this TfD. The AnomieBOT II came around and unsubstified them while AnomieBOT was substituting them resulting in what you saw. I've now added nobots to the templates so it should hopefully not happen again. --Trialpears (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
So it seems like the bot stores a list of all templates it has tried substituting but failed and doesn't try again. So I think I need some Anomie assistance, sorry... --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Those substitutions didn't actually fail, they just didn't succeed in the manner you expected thanks to the unsubstification (which, in turn, was due to those templates being listed at WP:AWB/DT). The bot does remember the revision ID of successful substitutions so it doesn't keep trying over and over. I've deleted the records of substitutions of templates beginning with "Template:Globalize/", so it should retry those substitutions soonish. Anomie 18:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette[edit]

There was a cite error in the article. The bot was unable to fix it. It added unnecessary quotation marks to a few citations. I think it would be too complicated for the bot to do this. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Compatible license[edit]

See this edit. I would like the bot to automatedly do this.

See this edit. I would like the bot to automatedly do this.

This is not a bot bug. Is it possible to program the bot to automatedly restore the required proper attribution in accordance with WP:MEDCOPY? If this bot can't be programmed to do this then which bot on Wikipedia can be programmed to do this? The link to the entire paper and full attribution is required for each license in accordance with Template:CC-notice. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a situation I'd rather not get involved with. I can imagine people questioning why the articles aren't following the advice to "write in your own words whenever possible", questioning why the direct quotes (if necessary at all) aren't being formatted as such, and debating whether a single sentence qualifies as the same sort of fair use that a direct quote of a single sentence from a non-free source qualifies as. Anomie 21:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Leh district[edit]

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Leh 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:

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 12:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

problematic bot edits in Kielce#Transport, Żółtki-Kolonia[edit]

There is a problem in the article Kielce. Since the bot substituted a template there back in June already, it looks like this with many direct uses of the Template:Subst only which doesn't belong in any article. Before the bot edit, it looked fine without those wrong templates in the text. If the bot edit will be reverted, if that still is possible, will the bot again add those wrong templates there? How can this problem be fixed? Readers might wonder very much about this. Now I see that Żółtki-Kolonia has the same problem after the bot edit there, also in June. I'll try to revert that now, because there have not been other edits afterwards. Let's see what will happen then. Greetings --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I also partly reverted this edit snd that edit. There always is Template:AS-droga making problems with the Subst only template. In Żółtki-Kolonia, the bot is substituting the edit correctly now. Thus, there remains the problem with Kielce#Transport which can't be just reverted anymore and has most of the subst only templates. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

AnomieBOT just follows instructions. You need to ask Fredddie (talk · contribs) why they made the template subst-only. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I was able to revert without issue. As for the rest, Redrose64 is correct: someone marked the template as auto-subst before checking that it actually worked correctly when substed. Unfortunately it's not possible for the bot to know that the substing was broken. Anomie 11:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for fixing the problem article anyway. I think the template works correctly now and the errors are fixed. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah that was me. I was trying to unify the dozens of road marker templates that have been copied over from other language Wikipedias into one template here that follows our policies and practices. And in having it auto-subst, template maintenance is reduced to one location's data module. Anyway, in June I thought I had gone back and fixed all the issues I created, but as it turns out I missed a few. Thanks for getting the ones I missed. –Fredddie 13:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, it is all fixed now. I have found all four of them in the link list (transclusion list for the article namespace) of Template:Subst only. Now it's empty, so everything in article namespace is fixed. This template should be used/transcluded only in templates, thus in template, project and user namespace. There are now a few uses left on talk pages.
And in project namespace I've found another subst template producing such code by substituting it. If anyone of you has an idea for that, please post it there. I have found no other substitution template like this long one in the project namespace list, this one is special. Hopefully, there are no other substitution templates like this in the template namespace. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

OTD template on Talk pages[edit]

In this edit, I fixed an edit by the bot. Can the bot to taught to place updates inside {{ArticleHistory}} using the parameters |otd10date=2019-08-09|otd10oldid=909950071? Was the error because it did not recognize the templace redirect? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: The bot doesn't know anything about {{ArticleHistory}} at this time. I'll have to look into it. Anomie 10:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Fylkesvei has too many transclusions[edit]

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 2019-08-13T14:54:14Z. 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 15:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Tag communists and communist organizations with Wikiproject Socialism[edit]

I would like to tag articles about communists and communist organizations with {{WikiProject Socialism}}. Whenever they do not contain the banner already, they should start with importance=low. I created a list of categories whose articles would be safe to tag: Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism/Categories. The categories themselves should be tagged too. Some categories are not linked (and not recursed into) because they may lead to unrelated articles. Would that be possible with AnomieBOT? I was directed here from BOTREQ. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: Please have a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Socialism where (other) members of that project check and approve your category list. In particular they should carefully verify that articles in all categories are appropriate for the project. Anomie 11:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in The Young Ones (TV series)[edit]

When trying to fix orphaned refs in The Young Ones (TV series), MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about faqs.org. 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:

  • The Young Ones (TV series) revision 911674369:
    • Rescued "youngfaq" from rev 911661618
      Removed in revision 911670572 by GUtt01 (talkcontribslogs) with comment "Major reworking of Article (Part 3) - Characters renamed Cast, with information thoroughly rewritten to comply to Wiki Policies, be neutral in tone, and to cater to a wider audience; some sections removed" (removed 23065/66177 bytes, 35%)

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 12:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


ANGRY!!!![edit]

Your edit of my SANDBOX cost me 3 hours worth of translating the page of the demonstrations in Hong Kong into Dutch!
GRRRRRRR
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit and added a nobots tag so it shouldn't happen again. The reason for this feature is that these templates shouldn't be used in articles, but may interfere when working on translations. --Trialpears (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It might serve you better to do the translation in your sandbox on the Dutch Wikipedia instead. Non-English-named templates like {{Citeer web}} are not intended to be used here, they only exist to help with people importing articles. Anomie 23:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I got it finished right before bedtime, so there is a good ending.
I might take your advice about the dutch sandbox, but there, the bots pick up on English templates...
It is a hard life for translators. :)
Anyway, this bot will not be able to return; one bot at a time it will get easier.
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dianetics[edit]

I am curious as to why you reverted my edit listing Korzybski's theory of the psychological effects of language which was eerily similar the engramic commands taught in Dianetics. The presently listed 'theory of identity' of Korzybski doesn't seem to resemble Hubbards teaching at all. CWatchman (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

CWatchman AnomieBOT has never reverted any edit, but you may be refering to @JzG: reverting back to a version by AnomieBOT with the edit summary "Non-RS". --Trialpears (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I was backing out some refspam. CWatchman, if that edit is still relevant after the rollback please feel free to reinstate it. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)