Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 6: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. (ARCHIVE FULL) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Automatic archive navigator}}
== Job for a bot ==
Line 10:
A bot keeps reverting my RfC in this talk page : [[talk:Special forces]]. It is seriously annoying as it keeps deleting every half hour or hour. Can someone please fix this ASAP. Thanks. <small>[[User:CharlieEchoTango|'''<span style="background:red;color:white"> CET </span>''']][[User talk:CharlieEchoTango#top|'''<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:white;"> ♔ </span>''']]</small> 08:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
:It is removing the tag because you're putting it above a section with a datestamp from July. If you want to initiate an RFC, please initiate a new section with a current datestamp and clear statement that describes the dispute and what needs commenting on. –[[user:xeno|<
== Skins and bots ==
Line 37:
::I fully agree with 69.111.195.229. (Personally I prefer lowercase for temporary templates and uppercase for permanent templates, but the privilege of changing the case of existing templates should be reserved for human editors anyway.) - [[User:Soulkeeper|Soulkeeper]] ([[User talk:Soulkeeper|talk]]) 07:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
*Like ENGVAR without STRONGNAT, they should be left alone as they were entered by human editors. –[[user:xeno|<
Well, IMHO, capitalizing via bot the name of a template is pretty useless. -- [[User:Basilicofresco|<span style="font:small-caps 1em Verdana;color:green">Basilicofresco</span>]] ([[User talk:Basilicofresco|msg]]) 21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
*FYI as noted in the header, this has now moved on [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please block Rich Farmbrough - thousands of unnecessary capitalization changes|to ANI]]. –[[user:xeno|<
=== SmackBot stopped, Rich Farmbrough blocked ===
:{{botlinks|SmackBot}}
SmackBot was stopped temporarily some hours ago, but appears to be running once more at the time of writing. {{admin|X!}} has blocked Rich Farmbrough for running an unauthorized 'bot on that account, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=387542946&oldid=386359902 this edit] with AutoWikiBrowser. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
:<s>The most recent SmackBot edits have been without the problems identified;</s> if they do to start to implement the disputed changes, it should be blocked as well. –[[user:xeno|<
::Struck, as I didn't notice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annite&diff=prev&oldid=387703963], which you pointed out at ANI changed the caps of the stub template. –[[user:xeno|<
:::Yes you weren't the only one not to notice. For anyone not following they were three obviously test edits on a minor task, made after an update to the bots page made it clear that that major task wasn't running. Anyone with bot experience would have known form the time-stamps (assuming they looked, which of course they are not bound to) that this wasn't a bot "run" or even a fast manual run with a four minute gap between edits. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC).<br />
:::: Test edits should not be performed on live articles. Use a sandbox. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Line 53:
===[[User:Magioladitis]] blocked===
Comments are invited at [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review:_User:Magioladitis]] regarding a similar issue to the above. –[[user:xeno|<
== Anyone seen a similar approach applied to this kind of challenge before? ==
Line 80:
[[User:Aquib american muslim|Aquib]] ([[User talk:Aquib american muslim|talk]]) 22:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
:It seems to me the output generated for CCI reports would be well-adapted to this task. See [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20101001|here]] for example. –[[user:xeno|<
::Yes, I believe it will - ''thanks!'' [[User:Aquib american muslim|Aquib]] ([[User talk:Aquib american muslim|talk]]) 23:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Line 131:
== BAG nomination ==
Hello! I invite you to comment on my BAG (Bot Approvals Group) nomination: [[Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/H3llkn0wz]]. Thank you. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
== Automatic taxobox ==
Line 166:
::: To quote that very section: "At a minimum, the operator should ensure that other users will be willing and able to address any messages left in this way if they cannot be sure to do so themselves." That seems to be satisfied here. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 19:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
*Misza's got a very popular set of archiving bots; there's really only a few "real" issues that are related to the lack of ongoing maintenance of the bot (most notably, handling of blacklisted urls which results in a less-than-graceful failure to archive). And Kslotte is right in that there's a good number of helpful [[WP:TPS|talk page stalkers]] that respond on Misza's behalf for the rest of the stuff (which is usually attributable to user error). –[[user:xeno|<
== Best practice for notifying users? ==
Line 189:
Does 1000 edits/hour on AWB require a bot flag? --[[User:Kleopatra|Kleopatra]] ([[User talk:Kleopatra|talk]]) 04:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:'''No''' See my response [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKleopatra&action=historysubmit&diff=410117034&oldid=410116641 here]. Simply put, I was editing fast, but all edits were by hand and all lists were constructed by me without the use of any external tool other than AWB or any special rights in addition to the standard ones that come with AWB permission. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 05:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:17 epm or 4 seconds per page usually cannot receive enough human attention. However, this would not necessarily imply the edits fall under a bot task, as the edits may actually require human supervision. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
::I'm not sure I understand your answer. Obviously this is editing too fast to get human attention, and considering the number of posts on the user's page about problem edits, it is clear he/she failed to give it the human attention.
::However, the question is, is a person who is using AWB at this rate ''required'' to have a bot flag? This appears to be the case under the bot and AWB rules. Do you know the answer to this question? --[[User:Kleopatra|Kleopatra]] ([[User talk:Kleopatra|talk]]) 14:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:::I was saying that someone editing at 1000 eph cannot give due diligence to the edits they make, therefore such editing is ''most likely'' semi-automated. Even with a bot flag and the editing designated as a manual task, this would exceed human capability. A bot flag by itself would not ''solve'' that issue. In reality, any 1000 eph task ''would'' need a bot flag (as pointed out below), because such editing would clearly be a semi-automated/automated task. What I was implying is that merely having high edit rate does not warrant a bot flag. Approved tasks do. High edit rate warrants a question if the edits are instead semi-automated, for which a bot account is required. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
:::::I see. You were elaborating on the policy details in regards to various methods of high edit counts. Thanks. --[[User:Kleopatra|Kleopatra]] ([[User talk:Kleopatra|talk]]) 16:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Line 199:
:::::Who is a member of BAG and commented above? Koavf is not on the bot approvals group. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 15:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Hellknowz. I did not respond to Koavf, as his answer is not to my question. --[[User:Kleopatra|Kleopatra]] ([[User talk:Kleopatra|talk]]) 16:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, 1000 edits per hour should run on a bot account with the bot flag to reduce impact to other editors. Should also be approved and have the consensus of the WikiProjects that are being acted upon, I see numerous complains from various WikiProjects at Koavf's talk page. There are [[:Category:WikiProject tagging bots|dedicated WikiProject tagging bots available]], if a project wanted a bot to tag for their project, they could surely engage one (perhaps one that would also [[:Category:Autoassessment bots|auto-assess]] and save, rather than make, work). –[[user:xeno|<
:::::What is the proper course of action to stop this editor? I just spend an hour correcting 14 (around) of his edits. I need him to revert all of his algae and protist page edits that have not been edited by someone else and stop using AWB. How do I go about this? Thanks, everyone, for the help. --[[User:Kleopatra|Kleopatra]] ([[User talk:Kleopatra|talk]]) 16:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::(1) I think he has already stopped biology articles, and his edit rate now seems more manual. (2) If the Wikiproject involved wants the tags removed, we can easily run a bot to remove them. The project just needs to come to a consensus and make the request. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 16:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Line 207:
::I just noticed that. Maybe I read his edit rate incorrectly? --[[User:Kleopatra|Kleopatra]] ([[User talk:Kleopatra|talk]]) 16:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
*I've disabled Koavf's access to AWB pending a satisfactory explanation of the above and a resolution of the errors that have been pointed out. –[[user:xeno|<
== Mjbmrbot broken ==
Line 215:
[[User:Mjbmrbot|Mjbmrbot]] is broken. I notified it's owner [http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB_%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1:Mjbmr#Reordering_languages here], but the bot is still running, apparently. It is -according to the owner- a standard pywikipediabot, but it is making a mess of interwiki-links. Can someone take appropriate action? (Not just en.wikipedia is affected!) Thanks [[User:Buzz-tardis|Buzz-tardis]] ([[User talk:Buzz-tardis|talk]]) 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:Blocked the bot until issue is fixed. Better contact meta for global block. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 13:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
::The bot is not using standard interwiki settings, they have cosmetic changes enabled. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup
::Searching the right place on meta... [[User:Buzz-tardis|Buzz-tardis]] ([[User talk:Buzz-tardis|talk]]) 13:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Requested a global block [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_blocks_and_locks#Mjbmrbot_broken here]... Probably the wrong place, but could not find a more appropriate one, on such short notice. (bot still editing...) [[User:Buzz-tardis|Buzz-tardis]] ([[User talk:Buzz-tardis|talk]]) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Line 223:
:See the [http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB_%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1:Mjbmr#Reordering_languages link] I gave earlier... examples are there. [[User:Buzz-tardis|Buzz-tardis]] ([[User talk:Buzz-tardis|talk]]) 13:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:Its moving interwiki links around the page, moving it below stub templates, which goes against the current standard. Interwiki bots should not use that feature. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup
:These "features", why they exist? -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 13:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
::Its there because it was originally a use for this, it just has not really been maintained due to different projects changing their formatting. I would like to see the results of their version.py results. I doubt that they are updating their pywikipedia framework regularly. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup
:::I update the bot everyday, but when Buzz-tardis told me there is a problem with my bot i updated it immediately again, if there was a problem with my bot should be solved but if still has problem, this is not mine, should contact pywikipedia authors [[user:mjbmr|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Mjbmr</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:mjbmr|<span style="color:red">Talk</span>]]</sup> 14:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
::::Its not a problem with pywiki, I know it very very well. Can you run version.py in your pywiki folder and post the results? [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup
First step is that the bot stops editing in mainspace. Then, we ll find a solution. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 14:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Line 239:
:::::unicode test: ok [[user:mjbmr|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Mjbmr</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:mjbmr|<span style="color:red">Talk</span>]]</sup> 14:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:What setting do you have for cosmetic_changes in your user-config? [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup
::::::Yes, i am using cosmetic changes and i always use cosmetic changes as many bots uses that i there wasn't any problem before, please check bot [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=prev&oldid=410164302 last edit] there is no problem with that anymore [[user:mjbmr|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Mjbmr</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:mjbmr|<span style="color:red">Talk</span>]]</sup> 14:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Line 276:
:::::I stopped the bot, until the problem get fix [[user:mjbmr|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Mjbmr</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:mjbmr|<span style="color:red">Talk</span>]]</sup> 07:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Ok. I withdrew the request for global lock. Please make sure the bot is /really/ fixed this time, before you start it up again. Also, could you please try clean up after it? -- [[User:Buzz-tardis|Buzz-tardis]] ([[User talk:Buzz-tardis|talk]]) 08:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Not ''try'', but ''do''. Per BOTPOL, it is the bot operator's responsibility to correct any bad edits by the bot. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
:::::::If the bot is stopped, for more than an hour by now, then why do new edits show up [http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Mjbmrbot&recentonly=true&lang= here]? Mjbmr? Please explain! -- [[User:Buzz-tardis|Buzz-tardis]] ([[User talk:Buzz-tardis|talk]]) 09:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
::::: That one seems to match [[m:Interwiki sorting order#By order of alphabet, based on local language]], which is the one that is listed as to be used for enwiki. What's wrong with it? [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 12:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Line 286:
== Automate stock information through RSS feeds ==
[[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automate stock information through RSS feeds]] - I have proposed using a bot (or bots) to automate stock information through RSS feeds, specifically in company infoboxes. This is not a bot request, I just thought that bot owners might have something of value to add to the discussion, as it could eventually lead to a bot request. Thanks! ▫ '''[[User:JohnnyMrNinja|<
== AN/I discussion about 27,000 automated edits ==
Line 302:
== Frescobot and Commons categories ==
I just found this bot editing articles on my watchlist to add commons category boxes per [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 6]]. Those boxes aren't always placed in articles on purpose based on the editorial decisions of the articles' editors. One good reason: all of the photos in the category are already in the article. Why entice a reader with the promise of more content, and then show them everything that they've seen in the article? Just something to consider since I've had to remove the box from 13 articles. The two articles where it was left in place each had one additional photo in the category. I'm waiting for the bot to hit the end of the alphabet, but I expect more edits to undo yet. Just some food for thought. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:We don't promise more content, we just say we have content at Commons. Some of this content may already be used in the article. Maybe now the categories don't contain a lot of images, but over time more images will end up in these categories. You shouldn't remove the links. [[User:Multichill|multichill]] ([[User talk:Multichill|talk]]) 10:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
::Many times they weren't put there on purpose originally, and now a bot is adding them. If the category box adds nothing to the article, it is pointless to leave it in place. Such an action should have been announced at a wider venue for input than a bot request. Besides, in some topic areas, there's no guarantee of additional content. [[M-554 (Michigan highway)]] was only {{convert|0.7|mi}} in length before it was decommissioned in 2005. What's the use in plopping a category for one photo that's in the article now? (The category has been emptied and tagged for deletion, btw.) <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
::Perhaps, the bot can only add the commons box if Commons contains images that are not found in the article? That would make perfect sense. Otherwise I have to agree that linking to the same images that the article already contains is misleading, even if the box's wording implies there may not be any. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
:::And if that's the case, at a future date, if there are 10 photos in the category, but only 3 in the article, the bot will add the box. The article's editors will be alerted to the additional photos by the addition of the box and then they can look through the category for better content to swap in and out of the article. Sounds like a win-win to me. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:The commons box should always be there because its a form of interwiki link. We don't remove interwiki links if the content on another wiki is the same (albeit in another language). -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 12:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
::And while I agree with normal interwiki links, the commons box is rather obtrusive. When I opt to include a commons link in my articles I usually use the inline variant. --<span style="background:#DD7500; padding:2px">'''[[User:Admrboltz|<font color="black">Admr</font>]][[User talk:Admrboltz|<font color="black">Boltz</font>]]'''</span> 16:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 322:
[[User:Luckas-bot]] is continually adding an actor's article from the Swedish wikipedia ([[:sv:Leslie H. Martinson]]) to an article about a book (''[[Lad, A Dog]]'').[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lad,_A_Dog&action=history] This is not the first time it (adding irrelevant links) has happened.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lad,_A_Dog&oldid=367123131] Can someone please block the bot to get its operator to notice the problem and fix it. [[User:Jappalang|Jappalang]] ([[User talk:Jappalang|talk]]) 15:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
* Contact [[:pt:user:Luckas Blade]] :) [[User:Diego Grez|Diego Grez]] ([[User talk:Diego Grez|talk]]) 15:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:This should be fixed now [http://da.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lad,_A_Dog&diff=prev&oldid=4799699]. The reason was "Lad: A Dog", when surrounded by square brackets will lead you to the article "A Dog" at the lad.wiki. As such, when an sv.wiki user created the article at sv. containing such a link [http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leslie_H._Martinson&oldid=13538233], the bots did their thing and spread the false-positive interwiki link. –[[user:xeno|<
== WP 1.0 bot: co-maintainer wanted ==
Line 333:
As discussed in an [[Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard/Archive_6#Mobius_Bot_has_gone_berserk|archived thread]], {{User|Mobius Bot}} went berserk late last year, and its owner, {{User|Mobius Clock}}, hasn't been heard from since long before that. I emailed Mobius but got no response. Is there any way the bot can be restored or replaced? Or could some other bot(s) take over Mobius Bot's functions? It seems a dreadful shame to lose a useful bot over something like this. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian '''J.''' Hunter]]<sup>([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]])</sup> 10:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:Should be fairly trivial to code. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup
::Here's the source: http://pastebin.com/i2ZYQBRD <small>([[User:X!|<span style="color:gray">X!</span>]] · [[User talk:X!|<span style="color:gray">talk</span>]]) · [[.beat|@609]] · </small> 13:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>*bump*</nowiki> Anyone willing to do the deed? Considering {{code|time required:utility gained}}, this would surely be an incredibly time-efficient way to help the 'pedia. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian '''J.''' Hunter]]<sup>([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]])</sup> 13:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::::It may be worthwhile to transplant this thread to [[Wikipedia:Bot requests]]. –[[user:xeno|<
:::::Ah, hadn't thought of that... Will do, thanks. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian '''J.''' Hunter]]<sup>([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]])</sup> 14:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 354:
I noticed in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dianetics:_The_Modern_Science_of_Mental_Health&diff=417701091&oldid=414520349 this edit] that [[User:RebelRobot]] was "fixing" ISBN formats, which caused a link to an image to be broken. I left a message about that, which I'm sure can be fixed for the future. However, due to volume of edits, it's impossible to humanly check them all for broken links. Also, I wandered if a bot requires community approval to do this type of reformatting, and if such approval has been given. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] ([[User talk:Thivierr|talk]]) 11:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:I do not see approval for this task at all. [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Archive_4#User:RebelRobot]] is the only approval and that's for interwikis. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
::Looking around for discussion I found [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RjwilmsiBot 6]], which approves a different bot, to do a similar ISBN reformatting. There's also some discussion at the end of [[Wikipedia talk:ISBN]]. However, I really don't see many people discussing the issue, particularly using the bot to make the change, and don't see a clear consensus. I think any editing on such a large scale should really have more people involved, and there should be a consensus. [[User:Thivierr|Rob]] ([[User talk:Thivierr|talk]]) 18:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::The bot was already temporarily blocked and operator notified of necessity for consensus and BRFA. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
Hi guys. The bot made a blunder in [[Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health]] simply because the image title contains <code>ISBN1403105464</code> and neither the original developers of the script I'm running nor me imagined that a image title will at some point contain an ISBN code. Should you have not pointed this mishap in time, it would have done the same for the other images named similarly on en.wp.
Line 377:
Please note that the bot does not convert '''ISBN number''' into '''ISBN n-u-m-b-e-r''' (as shown <small>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agust%C3%ADn_Fernando_Mu%C3%B1oz,_1st_Duke_of_Ri%C3%A1nsares&diff=prev&oldid=417351372 here]</small>). It merely performs a part of what [[User:SmackBot#3:_Correct_.22ISBN:.22_to_.22ISBN.22_to_allow_wikimagic_to_prevail|SmackBot]] was doing in 2006. Considering it's not making any substantial changes and that the community already approved of these at some point, I see no reason to open a new discussion about it. So far the bot edited some 6000 articles ([[!]] –> [[Focke-Wulf Fw 187]]). Given that en.wp has {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles, I wouldn't really label this as ''editing on such a large scale''. --[[User:Rebel|Rebel]] ([[User talk:Rebel|talk]]) 05:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
: Another bot being approved for a task at some point does not mean that you can do it with your bot without a BRFA. It may be that consensus has changed since the other bot ran, it may be that there were special concerns or restrictions on the other bot that you are not aware of (and that you would be violating), or it may just be that we don't find it necessary for two bots to be doing that particular task. "Editing on a large scale" is considered by absolute number of edits, not by the fraction of articles edited. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 13:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
: 6k is a lot. As anomie already says, bot tasks are not measured relative to total number of articles but in absolute. [[WP:BOTPOL]] does not mention anything about it being OK for bots to do the same tasks as already approved for some other bot. Which means you need to follow the same [[WP:BRFA]] practice as other bots. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
::I think it is only fair to tell Rebel that an admin might stop his bot running even if he does get approval at [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval]] for the task. [[User:Mr Stephen|Mr Stephen]] ([[User talk:Mr Stephen|talk]]) 17:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
:::An admin may stop any bot from running if it breaks policy, consensus, or goes rogue. I don't find that fact to be any more relevant in this particular case though. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
== API categorymembers Issue ==
Line 385:
:If it is a bug, then [[http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org Bugzilla]. File a new bug under MediaWiki -> API. Might it just be a caching issue? Maybe wait and see tomorrow if it's listed (unless today ''is'' tomorrow!) :) - [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]] <sup>[''[[Special:Contributions/Jarry1250|Who?]] [[User_talk:Jarry1250|Discuss]].'']</sup> 21:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=categorymembers&cmdir=desc&cmtitle=Category:Wikipedia%20good%20articles&cmlimit=max&cmcontinue=3113811] here it is listed. Not a bug with API as far as I can tell. What query are you using? — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
::Try it without the descending sort: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=categorymembers&cmtitle=Category:Wikipedia%20good%20articles&cmlimit=max] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=categorymembers&cmtitle=Category:Wikipedia%20good%20articles&cmlimit=max&cmcontinue=12790311]. It doesn't show up in those. -- [[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 21:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Oh, OK, weird. I guess it's a bug then. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
:[https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28013 Bug 28013] submitted. -- [[User:JLaTondre|JLaTondre]] ([[User talk:JLaTondre#top|talk]]) 21:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 407:
For obvious reasons they should not be relying on this functionality, and, in fairness, probably aren't. This is merely a notification that the bot's preference will be automatically switched to false for you on the English Wikipedia shortly and you may need to adjust your code appropriately. Regards, - [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]] <sup>[''[[Special:Contributions/Jarry1250|Who?]] [[User_talk:Jarry1250|Discuss]].'']</sup> 16:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for heads-up! Although, as you say, personally I did not rely on this. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
== What should I call my botcode? ==
Line 417:
::Lancelot? Then, if it is accepted, I'd go for [[User:Spamabot]]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 02:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I like Koalabot too...I always liked the [[Kwicky Koala]] cartoons when I was a kid. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 02:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:There is a line ''"The account's name should identify the operator or bot function"'' in the [[WP:BOTPOL]], but afaik no one bothers to enforce or check this. As long as it has "Bot" in the name. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
::I'm talking about the framework, not the account. I intend that when I run the bot on my computer, it will always operate as [[User:RichardcavellBot]]. But others may choose to operate it under their own bot accounts. Obviously they'll need to make separate BRFA requests. - [[User:Richardcavell|Richard Cavell]] ([[User talk:Richardcavell|talk]]) 13:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:::OK, so no accountname asked. Then, suggestions like "pywikipedia" and "cwikipedia" stand. Any hint from its features? Nice experience while programming C? From your dog's name? That's the way is works, I think. (Keeping my gest alive, it could be "cpamalot", see [[Spamalot]], or [[Spam]]. But this might be an insiders joke). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 17:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Line 426:
== DASHBot is broken - partially - maybe ==
Tim1357 (who's been gone for a few weeks) programed DASHBot to automaticly resize fair use images placed in [[:Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request]]. DASHBot has been running it's other tasks, but not this one. This means one of two things, a) the bot isn't working properly, or b) that function was turned off and either no one was told or it was announced somewhere I didn't see it. Please keep me in the loop. If he can be contacted to fix it, that would be preferable to me doing it manually. If someone else can fix it, I suppose that would be a good secondary option (but I'd rather not piss Tim off by treading on his toes.) If neither of those pan out, a new bot would be... nice. [[User:Sven Manguard|<
== Sandbox bots ==
Line 443:
== WikitanvirBot ==
Can somebody take a look at the thread at [[User talk:Wikitanvir#nobots]]. It has been an uphill struggle to get even a grudging partial acceptance of responsibility for WikitanvirBot's edits. I am still not convinced the user is on-message about this. I think someone from BAG should have a word. [[User:Spinningspark|'''<
:Im former BAG and I just left him a nice trouting. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup
::Thanks for that. Hopefully he will start to listen now. [[User:Spinningspark|'''<
== Urgent: Vandalism Bots are Down ==
So Cluebot NG has been down for over a week, the old Cluebot has been down for months, and there are hours where no one is on Huggle. This is very bad. What can be done in the mean time? Can old Cluebot be brought back online while new Cluebot is getting... (whatever reason it's not online) rectified? [[User:Sven Manguard|<
: This is nothing new. Cluebot-NG has been inconsistently running for several months now. Given that the original ClueBot was operated by the same folks -- I'd say there is little chance of bringing one online without the other. Granted, I appreciate all the ClueBot folks have done and are doing -- but some clear answers about what is going on and their future intentions would be nice. For one, I could begin to operate the metadata-detection algorithm of my [[WP:STiki]] tool in anti-vandal bot fashion, do the BAG approval, and begin automatically reverting egregious instances. Cluebot-NG has a much more robust system, though, and I wouldn't want to waste the time just to have them re-appear again. [[User:West.andrew.g|West.andrew.g]] ([[User talk:West.andrew.g|talk]]) 06:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 461:
:A good anti-vandalism bot can help prevent this by reverting the vandalism properly, before a reader stumbles onto the page and performs a flawed revert. What I mean to say is that anti-vandalism-bots do more than remove vandalism 'extra fast', they also help to prevent good content getting lost.
[[User:Arthena|Arthena]][[User talk:Arthena|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 16:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
::There are periods when no one is on the automated tools watching. After about midnight Eastern Standard I see a huge drop-off. The East Coast people are going to sleep, the Brits haven't woken up, and I donno about the Aussies, I guess they don't Huggle. That's when ClueBot being down hurts, when no one else is there. [[User:Sven Manguard|<
== "Good articles" on it.wiki ==
Line 487:
:::And the point is, the bot has executed an improper edit on this article, and so may be doing so in an equivalent situation to other articles. Chance discovery of improper bot behavior does not suggest that we should ignore improper bot behavior, especially if the edits make the article worse than it was (for the reader). [[User:Richard Myers|Richard Myers]] ([[User talk:Richard Myers|talk]]) 08:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Visually, the article was in a better situation. However, while markup->html parser handles heading hierarchy errors gracefully, the problem would have been apparent to anyone with a screen-reader and it would have skipped right to "1924 split" as first <nowiki><h2></nowiki> header. Visual style should not override accessibility. In the end, the bot brought up the issue and it has now been fixed to accommodate both regular and tool-assisted users. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
:::::Hi, thanks sincerely, but could you please give me the long version of what you are saying here? It seems that you're explaining this in a technical manner, and what you're saying seems important, but i don't quite understand. Apologies, all the density is on this end. Thanks, [[User:Richard Myers|Richard Myers]] ([[User talk:Richard Myers|talk]]) 09:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
::::::When a screen-reader reads a web-page, it goes through the heading in their hierarchical order (<nowiki>first article title <h1>, then ==second level== <h2>, ===third level=== <h3>, etc.</nowiki>) If the heading are out-of-order on the page, then the screen-reader will also read and process them out-of-order. There is no way for the person to know what is the actual "visual" layout on the page. Here's a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUPhEVWu_E YouTube video] linked on the bot's BRFA that explains this quite well. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
:The headings were only 'right' in the TOC, they were wrong visually. The code before the bot's edits was
Line 513:
::::Mr Stephen is correct, i was referring to the TOC as a menu, imprecisely, it seems. He may also be correct about the lower part of the TOC, i saw the errors at the beginning of the TOC, and used that as a basis for reporting. I am not insisting on a change to bot code, only on an evaluation, based upon what i judged to be an inadequate fix. [[User:Richard Myers|Richard Myers]] ([[User talk:Richard Myers|talk]]) 19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
:::::Just my two cents, all the bot did was hightlight an existing screwup (which I do not understand how it worked in the first place). the page was messed up both before and after the bot edited due to no fault of the bot, but rather humans. Instead of complaining about the bot try to ensure that the pages you work on do not end up that messed up in the first place. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup
::::::I think (based upon Mr Stephen's comments) that the TOC worked, just because the hierarchy was correct (i.e., individual section titles, although ''incorrect'', still had the proper relationship to each other.)
Line 576:
<blockquote>The relevant policy/guideline pages are [[WP:REFNAME]], [[WP:CITEFOOT]], and [[WP:NAMEDREFS]]. Grouping duplicate references is highly preferable to leaving them ungrouped. [[User:Snottywong|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">—SW—</b>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|comment]]</small></sup> 16:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
</blockquote>
:Merging duplicate refs is standard practice. Also my name is not Betacommand, I am not a bot which is why you had difficultly locating my old nick. Merging dupe refs makes reading the article a lot easier so that the ref section is not just 100+ items for 12 actual references. (I have seen similar things happen) [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup
There is a discussion at VP: [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bot_to_reduce_duplicate_references]]. While there is strong support towards merging dupe refs for articles that already use named refs, there are a few opinions the other way for general cases. There is a BRFA ([[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Snotbot_4]]) in progress. Admittedly, this is being done by at least several tools/bots already as "uncontroversial". — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
:(ec) I agree with the sentiment of this complaint, that established referencing systems should not be messed with, although on this particular point I have long since conformed to the style because it's too troublesome to fight. Yes, there is a bot that will fix orphaned references but this still does not detract from the inconvenience the editor is being put to. Unless there is something in the guidelines that prohibits duplicate references then I would support reversion in these cases. It is one thing for an editor working on an article to change the reference style prior to an expansion to something they are more comfortable with (although even that is against guidelines), it is quite another for someone else, bot or human, to turn up at the article and obstruct the editors actually doing the work by forcing them to work with an unfamiliar system. As an aside, an often overlooked advantage of duplicate references is that they keep refs in numerical order making them easier to find manually. Also, personally, I try not to combine references while I am actually constructing an article because it often happens that a particular passage requires additional pages or authors added as the work progresses and uncombining is a real pain to do in a long article. [[User:Spinningspark|'''<
::Thanks all for the enlightening comments. The situation described by some here is, frankly, somewhat abhorrent to me, because in spite of the fact that merging dup refs is considered "preferable" or "standard" or "non-controversial", the procedure by which this practice is implemented is '''''broken'''''. I have quit working on some articles when the citation scheme has been abruptly changed by someone else. I expect that some other editors have done the same. I have struggled through some other articles which i thought were worthwhile in spite of the challenge. But ''that situation is not conducive to an improving Wikipedia''.
Line 649:
Hi everyone. I've had it suggested to me to create a bot that will count redlinks and identify which terms are most frequently redlinked (ie they're linked to but there is nothing at the destination). How would such a bot work most effectively? Would the bot comb through all the pages in a category, or all the pages in 'what links here'? I don't own a server or domain name so would it be best if the results were posted on the requesting user's talk page? Or within the bot's own userspace? If the bot only posted in its own userspace, would it need BRFA approval at all? - [[User:Richardcavell|Richard Cavell]] ([[User talk:Richardcavell|talk]]) 06:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
: This would probably be best done using a database dump. If a bot edits only its own userspace, and is not otherwise disruptive, it does not normally need a BRFA. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 21:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
::This can ''also'' be done with a Database report. It's running now and the 200 mostly linked, non-existant articles (from the article space) will be saved [http://toolserver.org/~tim1357/Static/Reports/desired here]. The report should be done in a matter of hours. [[User:Tim1357|<
:::{{Done}} (See a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tim1357/test&oldid=424953456 formatted version]) [[User:Tim1357|<
Pretty sure this already exists (most wanted pages?) . ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>06:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
:[[Wikipedia:Most wanted articles]] does indeed exist, but was last updated in December 2010. <tt>[[User:Svick|User<Svick>]].[[User talk:Svick|Talk()]][[User:Svick/Signature|;]]</tt> 20:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Line 665:
I'm not familiar with the bot policy. [[User:Cboursnell]] is mass-creating draft articles inside his/her userspace. See also [[User:PfamWikiBot]] (inactive). [[User:Marcus Qwertyus|<font color="#21421" >'''Marcus'''</font>]] [[User talk:Marcus Qwertyus|<font color="#CC7722" >'''Qwertyus'''</font>]] 16:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
:Users may create drafts in userspace, even many, if their purpose is to improve Wikipedia. If these articles need to be manually reviewed before moving to mainspace, then bot-creating them en masse is how it's often done. After all, we are not paper enc. Of course if there are very many or their notability is disputed, this should have been discussed first. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
:He doesn't seem to be doing anything terribly fishy. Just strange. Still, communication would be nice, so I've left him a message on his talk page. Cheers. [[User:Lifebaka|<
== Script ==
Line 708:
:: Hmm, it's not important that it reports to a sub-page of [[WP:STiki]] (which I operate) -- having it dump to a sub-page of my own user-page would be the moral equivalent -- so I'll proceed down that route. This does not concern the issue of link rot (in which case a DB dump would be appropriate), as I am already monitoring link additions in real time as part of [[WP:STiki]] project, so this was just going to be a trivial modification for the community's benefit. I am aware of [[User:COIBot]], but the issues here seem orthogonal. Thanks, [[User:West.andrew.g|West.andrew.g]] ([[User talk:West.andrew.g|talk]]) 02:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
:::What I sometimes do for this kind of task is to edit a use subpage and then transclude the page to [[WP:STiki/Dead_Links]] with a template. [[User:Tim1357|<
::::Otherwise I'd speedy-approve it for you. [[User:Tim1357|<
== Hard to edit Greek letters ==
Line 728:
::::Thanks. Let's see if we get any feedback. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 10:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
* I donno about policy, but I think that whenever possible, avoiding the &random-letter-random-number-soup stuff is actually best. I'd put it in Greek, with a <nowiki><!--This formula uses Greek characters.--> or <!--This formula uses Greek characters, do not insert English characters into the formula.--></nowiki> next to it. [[User:Sven Manguard|<
**I think that the proper conclusion of this discussion would bne to discuss the issue of Greek letters vs. Unicode on an appropriate MOS page, and that Yobot not do any more replacements of this type until such discussion is finished. [[User:Od Mishehu|עוד מישהו]] [[User talk:Od Mishehu|Od Mishehu]] 03:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 735:
== Free bot to new home (paper trained & has all shots) ==
Any botops have room for one more? [[User:HBC Archive Indexerbot|HBC Archive Indexerbot]] is broke because its server has died. Krellis is offering it to whomever would like to give it a new home [[User_talk:Krellis#HBC_Indexerbot_is_broken.3F|here]].<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">[[User:Berean Hunter|<
:Krellis has it running again...he's keeping it. :)<br/><span style="text-shadow:#294 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; class=texhtml">[[User:Berean Hunter|<
== Bot needed ==
Line 771:
I recently added a feature to [[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] so that it's capable of replacing an existing set of suggestions, rather than simply append them. Would this kind of feature require a separate BRFA and some trials before I add it to the bot's documentation, or is it not such a critical piece of functionality? Cheers, [[User:Nettrom|Nettrom]] ([[User talk:Nettrom|talk]]) 19:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:Better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission. A BRFA tends to be a magnet for editors who love to argue for the sake of arguing. The change you made seems pretty minimal, I think you'd be fine to implement it without a BRFA and see if there are any complaints. It's pretty much up to your discretion, per [[WP:BOTPOL]]: "Should a bot operator wish to modify or extend the operation of a bot, they should ensure that they do so in compliance with this policy. Small changes, for example to fix problems or improve the operation of a particular task, are unlikely to be an issue, but larger changes should not be implemented without some discussion." [[User:Snottywong|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">—SW—</b>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|confer]]</small></sup> 19:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:I don't think a new BRFA would be needed, especially as this is an opt-in change for an already opt-in bot. –[[user:xeno|<
::Thanks for your comments. A good reminder that I should study [[WP:BOTPOL]] again, just to refresh my memory. As [[User:xeno|xeno]] mentions, it's an opt-in change, the default behaviour of the bot hasn't changed. Once I've read the bot policy again I'll probably go ahead and add the documentation for it. Thanks again for your help, both of you, much appreciated! Cheers, [[User:Nettrom|Nettrom]] ([[User talk:Nettrom|talk]]) 23:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
== How to tell if the bot flag is set for an edit ==
Line 791:
Could there be a bot that requests pages be protected at [[wp:rpp]] if an article is vandalized more than a certain amount of times (like 3) in a certain time (like 24 hours)? The bot could also automatically protect the page without requesting.[[User:Heyitsme22|Heyitsme22]] ([[User talk:Heyitsme22|talk]]) 12:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
:Hi, I was thinking about a bot that reports pages for protection, much like one reports pages at [[WP:AIV]] and [[WP:UAA]]. I would support a bot that adds pages to [[WP:RFPP]], but I would not support a bot that automatically protects the page, pages still need to be checked manually by a human admin, initially at least as "vandalism" in a bot's eyes could be false positives. [[User:Thehelpfulone|<
::The bot wouldn't necessarily need to ''detect'' vandalism, only find edit summaries that identify the reverted edits as vandalism several times (huggle messages, twinkle messages, cluebot message, common expressions like "rvv", "revert vand", etc.). In addition checking only non-anon, autoconfirmed editors would give almost no false positives (and a quick BRFA ;)). You could also ping ClueBot operators to see if they would be interested in doing this. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
:::If everyone is OK with it, I can poke Cobi to try and add this in to ClueBot NG - <
Please let me know if there is a public code for such a bot, because I would like to implement it in huwiki. [[User:Bináris|Bináris]] ([[User talk:Bináris|talk]]) 16:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Line 811:
Hi there. [[User:DASHBot|DASHBot]] is supposed to clean out [[:Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request]] nightly, at least of all of the images (95% of what's there). It went for over a week not doing it, then ran on July 6, but failed to run yesterday. (Task [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 9|here]])
I can keep that category trimmed, but it sucks up lots and lots of time. I'd like for either DASHBot to be brought back up, or some other solution to be found. Please? [[User:Sven Manguard|<
:Procedural: [[user talk:Tim1357|Tim1357]], the bot's owner, was notified. [[User:Sven Manguard|<
::The stupid [[crontab]] is being stupid. I'm trying to figure out why it keeps giving up. Gimme a minute. [[User:Tim1357|<
:::Could [[nice_(Unix)|nice]] be killing it? [[User:Tim1357|<
::Aannyways I started it again manually and changed the crontab so that it no longer uses "nice" and runs at a different time so that the server isn't so loaded. [[User:Tim1357|<
:::Thanks, saw it run. Will it run every day again? Also, if you're looking for a slow time, it's about three hours and 20 minutes from this timestamp ( 03:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC) ). Too early for the Brits to be editing, after midnight for the US West Coast, after 3AM for the US East Coast. IRC channels for Wikipedia, at least, go dead around then. [[User:Sven Manguard|<
:Yep, it looks like it ran on its own today [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&dir=prev&offset=20110709003656&limit=2&user=DASHBot&month=&year=] so I think it should work from now on. Just for the record, I was worrying about the [[WP:TOOLSERVER|toolserver]] (where DASHBot is hosted) being overloaded, not the wikipedia server. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. {{=)}} [[User:Tim1357|<
::No problem. If the bot ever croaks, ''I'' get stuck with doing the resizing manually, so I check up on it from time to time. [[User:Sven Manguard|<
:Two things, firstly, if nice was killing it, doesn't that raise serious issues in itself?
:Secondly, when I consulted the log, it said something like "identified 4 files" when there were more than 4 in the category...? - [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]] <sup>[''[[Special:Contributions/Jarry1250|Weasel?]] [[User_talk:Jarry1250|Discuss]].'']</sup> 10:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
::Jarry: I haven't gotten any emails saying that it was killed because it was using too many resources so I have no idea what was up. [[User:Tim1357|<
::It can't tackle sound or video files. A dozen of those have been in the category for over a month, and the video has been there as long as I've been checking that category, so going on a year. It does, however, get all the images. [[User:Sven Manguard|<
== [[User:SmackBot]] tasks => [[user:Helpful Pixie Bot]] tasks and bot-flag ==
{{resolved|1=Flag granted to bot clone. –[[user:xeno|<
Further to [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2011Jul#Bot's name]] and an email from Phillipe@WMF, I have created a new account with a more "friendly" name. I plan to transition SmackBot's activities to this account, once a bot flag is set.
Line 831:
''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>13:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=&user=Xeno&page=User:Helpful+Pixie+Bot All set]. –[[user:xeno|<
::Then I would suggest that you remove bot flag from SmackBot. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 13:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Sure; as soon as Rich confirms that it is standing down. –[[user:xeno|<
:::I was going to say there need to be a transition, but actually there probably doesn't. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>14:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
::::OK transitioned. Thanks. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>14:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
::: Removing the bot flag would screw the statistics systems. — [[User:Dispenser|Dispenser]] 14:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Could you explain? –[[user:xeno|<
:::::Methods of excluding bots are based on the presences of the bot flag. Having a separately maintained list across all wikis is too much effort. And while unflag a bot with less than 400 edits has little effect SmackBot has nearly 4,000,000. If we're talking about security, we ought to talk about unflagging retired/inactive/non-e-mailable admins. But we already know the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/desysop poll|results of that]]. — [[User:Dispenser|Dispenser]] 18:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps you have not been keeping up-to-date on [[WP:INACTIVITY|recent events?]] –[[user:xeno|<
:Renaming is impossible due to the number of edits and having an inactive account set as bot is not a good idea. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 14:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
::Not impossible, but would require developer intervention (and they might say no =). –[[user:xeno|<
::Umm... [[:Category:Inactive Wikipedia bots]]. — [[User:Dispenser|Dispenser]] 18:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Indeed, I've only just recently deflagged some bots that hadn't edited since ''2007''. Since there's clearly no rush, we can explore potential problems that would crop up by de-flagging SmackBot before it's done. –[[user:xeno|<
::::Seems there is already a (quasi-)central list for this purpose: [[Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Unflagged bots]]. –[[user:xeno|<
:: Submit a request for the rename to be completed in [[bugzilla:]] and someone should do it. [[User:Peachey88|Peachey88]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Peachey88|T]] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span>  [[Special:Contributions/Peachey88|C]])</sup> 04:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Line 885:
::However, let me be clear: I am not hopping up and down requesting action, I'm not "upset", and I'm not considering this a big deal. It was meant as a small course correction as part of an overall shepherding process for Porchcorpter; if there isn't wide agreement with my point of view, tehwiki won't break. Finally, I was unaware of a relatively large number of accounts in [[:Category:Unapproved Wikipedia bots]]. If Porchcorpter understands this "bot" account should only be editing in its own space, as noted in the current infobox on the top of its page, I think there's nothing more to see here. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue"> Frank </span>]] | [[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan"> talk </span>]]</span></small> 12:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
*Since the account wasn't/isn't editing, this is all rather academic. However, my thoughts are that an account with 'bot' in the username should only be doing specifically approved tasks (not "just whatever with AWB"), as people may afford the edits less scrutiny (i.e. assuming they've been approved by BAG). –[[user:xeno|<
*Cheers Kingpin. But note that the fact that this was made to be a bot account, and hasn't been editing manually, it definitely does not violate the username policy. And also, some bots were only used for AWB purpose, and these bots are used <nowiki>{{</nowiki>bot|''operator''|awb=yes<nowiki>}}</nowiki> on their userpage. The bots only made to run for AWB don't need have any code or script behind it. And I am famaliar with UAA, when the ban expires (which is two months from now), see if there are still problems with me at UAA. The reason of topic bans is because I was a bit incompetent, and the community could not stand my disruption. -'''''[[User:Porchcorpter|Porch corpter]]''''' <span style="font-size:12px;">([[User talk:Porchcorpter|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Porchcorpter|contribs]])</span> 09:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
== BAG candidacy ==
Line 914:
I can no longer seem to log in using my homemade scripts, which always used to work - either under my bot account or my normal user account. When I give the correct username and password, I just get served up with the main page, and I'm not logged on. Has there been a change of requirements as to the user agent string or something? Thanks for any pointers,--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 08:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
:How are you logging in? API? — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
::By brute force - getting the login form and sending a request back with all the required data. It always used to work, with an invented user agent string ("Agent.Kotbot"), but now I discover it's not working - well, it worked once today, for the bot account, but not for my own user account; and then after I made a few attempts with a different user string (a standard Mozilla one), it no longer works even for the bot and even with "Agent.Kotbot". So unless I've made some stupid error, I'm assuming there's been some change as to the requirements for the agent string.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 08:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
:::I've never done it this way, may be someone else might help you. I also don't follow changes to MediaWiki, so I wouldn't know if they changed anything. Perhaps your POST data lacks some newly added parameter? Perhaps your script isn't accepting cookies properly? Perhaps you are getting a Captcha? I'm puzzled, because you say it worked once, suggesting it may be a Captcha. May be you have a bad referral string value (if that even matters)? Unless your user agent is blacklisted, I don't think it matters as long as it is not empty. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
::::Update: sorry, it seems that the bot account is continuing to log in as normal, so it's only my regular user account that's causing the problem. Are there different agent string (or other) requirements for regular accounts than for bot-flagged accounts?--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 10:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::I don't think there is any difference—my bot logs into its non-bot-flagged account just fine. However, if you fail the login 3 times with the standard user form, you will be presented with a captcha, and if you fail the API login 5 times, all subsequent requests will be dropped for 15 minutes. (Just use the API; it's a lot easier! :P ) [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] ([[User talk:Reaper Eternal|talk]]) 10:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for all the suggestions, but exactly the same thing's happening today: my script can log on to the bot account and perform an action without any problem; but when I change the bot name and password to my personal username and password, it's not getting logged on (it's receiving the Main page instead of the you are/are not logged on page). This is despite my having no problems logging off and on again in my browser, without any Captcha. Any more ideas? I'll try asking at the technical VP as well.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 12:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Perhaps it is because you are already logged in via your browser, so when you try to re-loggin, MediaWiki just ignores that request and redirects you back to the last page you visited (or Main Page, since your bot script didn't come from any page). — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
::::::::Hmm, yes, that's a possibility (though it must be a recent change) - I'll try it another day from a different IP address without opening the browser first, and see if it makes any difference.--[[User:Kotniski|Kotniski]] ([[User talk:Kotniski|talk]]) 14:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::There's zero chance of us helping debug this without more info that "homemade scripts" :) What language are they written in? What OS are you executing them under? etc. Could be all manner of causes --'''[[user:ErrantX|Errant]]''' <sup>([[User_talk:ErrantX|chat!]])</sup> 15:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Line 954:
I'll defer to individual bot owners on best to achieve good communication for whatever bot / bot tasks they are running, but it would be nice if everyone would at least review their bot's edit summaries and ask themselves if it's possible to make them better (suggestions 3 & 4 should be particularly easy to follow). Thanks. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 03:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
* Endorse this strongly. Summaries like "Fixing infobox" or "Repairing links" are not descriptive and a good portion of bot summaries are still truly basic even if BOTPOL prescribed differently. I understand that it is cumbersome to write them out when editing manually, but for a bot all that's required is a one-time coding. My preference is that bot summaries say exactly what they did and link to the task's description. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
I completely agree that a summary of the form 'fixing infobox' should be improved. I have two comments:
Line 961:
— Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 11:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
::The point is mostly to explicitly encourage people to report errors and make suggestions for improvements. The link doesn't really *have* to be there, but it makes it clear where comments should be left and people don't have to wonder if they should leave it on the bot's talk page, operator's talk page, or some kind of subpage etc... So if space consideration allowed for the link to be there, why not? Newbies might very well leave an error report on the article's talk page, and then the operator would probably never hear of it.
::As I said, I'll defer to individual bot owners one how best to make the edit summaries clear for their bots. A specialized bot that works on WikiProject subpages (i.e. a bot that updates [[WP:JCW]]) has much less of a need for a clear edit summary than a bot that removes fair use files from articles when they lack a proper license. Fun to have a nice edit summary in both cases, but "Updating report" in the former case is good enough, while "Removing file" in the later case isn't. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 14:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, but there's a limit to summary length, and sometimes less is more. The distinction Headbomb draws is a good one - choosing the edit summary is a matter of programmer discretion, as well as time and tools available. For example with custom code it's possible to build up a blow by blow edit summary (though arguably this duplicates "diff"), whereas with AWB there are specific things (the most useful) you can do, and that's it. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>17:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
::::<code>diff</code> shows '' what'' was done, not ''why'' it was done (who authorised it, and the rationale behind it). Linking to eg. [[WP:MOSNUM]] is good but its scope is large and I think the "blow-by-blow" is useful in narrowing the specific area/action taken being undertaken (and only if it was ''actually'' undertaken in this specific edit). —[[User:Sladen|Sladen]] ([[User talk:Sladen|talk]]) 20:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Line 972:
A long time ago, I started adding details. The irony was the demand for detail increased in proportion to the amount of detail provided. I'd mention A, B, C, D, and E and would say "You didn't mention F" or "You didn't mention the discussions, the guidelines, the BRFA". With the article title and section heading, a summary can easily be three lines for some readers. Long summaries got complaints that it was incorrect, succinct ones didn't. The problem was worse if I customised summaries and forgot to update it. It's probably time to have another think about it (thanks to comments by Headbomb, Sladen, and others). I've always wanted to be able to provide an automated summary from the diff as Rich suggests, but I've never been able to do it. Does anyone know how to do it for AWB custom modules? [[User:Lightmouse|Lightmouse]] ([[User talk:Lightmouse|talk]]) 18:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
:People should be able to find most of the details by reading the BotRFA, so if that is linked to the edit summary, along with a very basic summary, should that not be enough? [[User:Sven Manguard|<
== Read-only admin bot ==
Line 982:
Note sure where to post this, but hopefully someone here can assist. I tried [[User talk:Misza13]] already to no avail. It appears that this bot has ceased running all tasks other than [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases]]. In particular, the edits to the [[Special:PrefixIndex/User:MiszaBot/Trackers|sub-pages of User:MiszaBot/Trackers]] appear to no longer take place. Is anyone still running the bot, and if so can this function be restored? If the answer to either question is "no", please advise and I will boldly get rid of the templates and remove any transclusions of same. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 18:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
:The archiving MiszaBots still run, so I believe this only applies to the tracker pages. –[[user:xeno|<
:The tracker pages are probably redundant to the progress boxes {{Tl|Orphaned articles progress}} for example. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>11:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
Line 1,021:
::So in wiki en, all categories in articles are organized manually. That s a lot of job! --[[User:Helmoony|Helmoony]] ([[User talk:Helmoony|talk]]) 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
:::I suppose you could ask that the folks over at [[WP:AWB]] consider adding category organization to their general fixes (they currently do alphabetize interwiki links, after all), but it isn't really a big deal what order categories appear in, is it?. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 19:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
::::AWB won't (can't) reorganize categories from how they were set by humans as they may be ordered alphabetically, or in a conceptual hierarchy. –[[user:xeno|<
:::::Huh, hadn't thought about that. Thanks. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 19:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::<s>I think this is not talking about ordering of the categories on the page, but of the pages in the category, like changing <nowiki>[[Category:Canada]] to [[Category:Canada| ]]</nowiki> on [[Canada]], so that [[Canada]] appears at the top of [[:Category:Canada]]. I don't see offhand why a bot couldn't do that (in a restricted set of circumstances). [[User:Ucucha|Ucucha]] ([[User talk:Ucucha|talk]]) 21:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)</s>
Line 1,027:
== Bot needed to replace DASHBot for task 9 ==
DASHBot [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 9|task 9]] has been inactive for over a month now. The backlog it keeps clear is at over 1000 items. Not only that, but this is not the first time that the task has gone dark under mysterious circumstances. To be blunt, a replacement is needed. I can neither do resizings nor run bots off my computer right now, so I'm asking for someone to code and run the bot. I'm not sure how toolserver works, but I'd be willing to try and run the program through TS using Svenbot if someone is willing to code the bot but not run it. [[User:Sven Manguard|<
: I don't think the BRFA tells the whole story. For example, rather than rescaling to a width of 325px, its last 100 uploads seem to have resized images to contain approximately 160000 pixels (400x400 for a square image). If you can get the source or current specifications and issues to watch out for, I'll take a look at cloning it. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 16:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
::I don't know why but cron seems to always reject this job. I just got it running again, but it only lasts for about a month at a time. [[User:Tim1357|<
::: How strange. What exactly does it do when it stops working, and what do you have to do to fix it? [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 17:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
== bot-related issues local scope... ==
Line 1,048:
== [[User:SoxBot III|SoxBot III]] ==
I have visited [[User talk:X!]] with a message about what I am about to say. He has not replied so I will say it here: I was looking at a bot (SoxBot III), which reverts pointless wikitext additions like <nowiki>[[File:[[File:Example.jpg]]<ref></ref>]]<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki></nowiki>, and noticed that it had not edited since 2009, but I think that this is a brilliant idea. I think that the bot should be running again, and if X! doesn't want it himself I would be happy to take over the running myself. There are a lot of new editors, particularly IPs, who just mess around clicking buttons and saving and this needs to be reverted. If this is the case, can somebody please find me the source code and we can take it to BRFA. (Although I would like a renaming to RcsprinterBot.) Thanks,
:X!, sadly, had drifted off. Unless he came back in the last two weeks, that is. You might be able to reach him over the IRC, #wikipedia-en, where he goes by Yetanotherx. Anything of his that we can absorb, we should. [[User:Sven Manguard|<
::So, can I? I'd like to but I'm not really sure how to transfer operators or rename a bot. And I'll need the source code and login details. I shall also try to get in touch with X! over IRC too. <font color="#A20846">'''[[User:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:cambria; font-size:11pt; color:gray">Rcsprinter</span>]]''' [[User talk:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:calibri; font-size:9pt; color:black">(talk)</span>]]</font> 10:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
:::FYI, there's already [[User:28bot|a bot that does this]]. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 09:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Line 1,111:
If you might be interested in taking over one of these, please let me know. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 14:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
: I could ... I have a couple of non-admin bot accounts that are inactive. Since [[User:7SeriesBOT]] is always running, no harm in running another ... ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<
:: If Bwilkins doesn't want it, I'd take the updating of [[WP:PERTABLE]] and [[WP:SPERTABLE]]. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 18:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
::: Do I need to submit any BFRA notification to change this to one of my bot accounts? ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<
:::: Yes, but if it's the same code or just minor changes it would be speedyable. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 15:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
== Wikispecies needs help! ==
Line 1,175:
The exact question in this is, can I go ahead and use my bot to replace these, using my prior approval of WikiProject template replacement BRFA, to make these changes? There are a about 3000 articles affected but many of them have other problems in addition to this one change. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 16:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:Couldn't a sysop just purge the template/redirect? It's probably just gotten lost from queue. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
:This is just the job queue and occurs for many different things. They should just be left alone as it will update in time. Null editing (or in this chase changing the redirect) to avoid the job queue defeats the purpose of the job queue. That being said I null edited the template/redirect itself to see if that helps. -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 16:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::Yep. [[:Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing images]] is cleaning itself up. — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
:::Yes you are correct they could and that might help and thank you for doing that but if we weren't using a redirect then this wouldn't happen. You are correct, the queue does it for many things and a very large percentage of those are template redirect malfunctions, because redirecting code (templates) regardless of what some might want the not so tech savvy masses to believe, has 2nd and 3rd level effects that can adverselly impact other things. Sometimes they don't update categories, sometimes they don't work quite right, sometimes they don't work at all, sometimes they work in WP but not in a mirror site or something like Facebook for instance, etc.. The bottom line is we shouldn't be treating a template redirect in the same manner as an article redirect. I also don't like the comment that it will update in time, no offense intended but Godzilla used to be a little bitty lizard and look what happened to him/her over time. They became a really big problem that wreaked a lot of havoc and got into a lot of mischief before it was stopped. Frankly I don't know how long this problem has existed but I know that both that template and its redirect have been in place for a long time. How many more are there out there that aren't updating or functioning? I don't think anyone knows. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 17:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Actually it would have happened redirect or not. It wasn't the redirect that caused it, it was the move itself that caused it and put it in the job queue. Pretty much none of the things you mention actually happen when redirecting a template. The only issue that you can have with redirects of templates is if the old template had different parameter names than the new template. And usually most people fix those when redirecting a template. I think you have a fairly big misunderstanding of how template redirects work. Yes sometimes the job queue loses some tasks but that is fairly rare and not really because of of the redirect itself. As for how many others out there aren't functioning right now....if people haven't noticed then there probably isn't a problem or people would complain or look into it like in this case. -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 17:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::This "problem" has existed since job queue was made. Indeed, this wasn't the redirect that caused it. My guess is the job queue got borked up and flushed its entries (so this would have affected articles, categories, and user talk pages equally that needed an update at the time). — <small> [[user:H3llkn0wz|<
:::::Exactly it would have affected anything that was waiting to refresh in the job queue when the job queue hiccuped. The only reason it looks like its a template redirect problem is because you can easily tell which pages never got their cache updated because they are "marked" via the redirect being there whereas looking at an article that was waiting to update you wouldn't have an easy way to tell you were still looking at the old cached version. However when the queue hiccuped it would have affected any article waiting in its queue not just template redirects . -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 18:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
::::::No offense but however the redirect was created, its still a problem with a redirect and this redirect and template has been in existance for a long long time so it must have been like this for a while. Basically what I am getting though is that its a general bi product of the redirect process itself and not the type of redirect. Is that correct? And I completely disagree that just because knowone has caught it means it isn't a problem. Job queue aside '''I have''' seen several occassions where template redirects didn't function including the reasons listed above and sometimes in relation to interacting with sister wiki sites. In some cases knowone could figure out why it didn't work saying "it should" but when the redirect was chaneged to the actual template the problem was mysteriously fixed. In one case they even said that it was a rare bug that had already been identified and wasn't worth bringing to light because the status quo quo of template redirects works most of the time. Additionally its confusing for inexperienced editors (sometimes even for the experienced ones) and hard to program when you have 50 variations of something to try and compensate for. You are right too about the template parameter problem, that is another issue in itself and again would usually be solved by simply not using a redirect. Oh well, no reason to dwell on it, this ones fixed so the problem is solved and we can all move on. Thanks again for the help. Just wondering but this seems to be a fairly common problem is there a way I can check the "Job queue" the next time this problem comes up; or better yet just check in periodically to make sure things aren't hung up? --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 18:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Well, if you're really curious, you can check [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&meta=siteinfo&siprop=statistics here] and the job queue length on one of the three servers handling the queue will be reported. But you can't see what articles are in the queue, mostly because it'd be a.) hard on the servers, and b.) it wouldn't be of much use. — <strong><
::::::::Thank you thats good to know. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 18:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:::::::(ec) Yup you basically have it :) . Whenever something is done on the wiki that changes how multiple pages look or are referenced it will go into the job queue so that the cache of the page can be updated. (unless you are editing one single page which causes it skip the queue and happen immediately). So then each page affected by whatever you have done wait in line to have their cache updated one by one so as not to put a strain on the resources basically. What sometimes happens and probably happened was that when the template was moved. All of the pages it was used on were added to the job queue to be updated to the fact that the template was now redirected. At some point while they were sitting in the queue the queue had an issue and dropped all the pages from its queue. So any that hadn't yet been updated still had their old cache. Between now and then some have had their redirect "fixed" or some other edit on their page which then would have updated the cache. However, some have never been touched since the move happened so sat with their old cache until I basically shoved them back into the job queue by editing the template/redirect. The queue itself usually isn't all that big...but if someone has changed the look of some high use navboxes and the like it can get pretty long. -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 18:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
| |||