Jump to content

User talk:Anomie: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
talkback acknowledged
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
→‎OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion: Provide information on correctly fixing reference errors (instead of reverting)
Line 209: Line 209:


Hi Anomie I wanted to let you know that [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 26]] has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! [[User:BAGBot|BAGBot]] ([[User talk:BAGBot|talk]]) 19:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Anomie I wanted to let you know that [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 26]] has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! [[User:BAGBot|BAGBot]] ([[User talk:BAGBot|talk]]) 19:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

== OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion ==
I check pages listed in [[:Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting]] to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=276726562&diff=prev reverted]</span> my fix to [[:User:Anomie/Sandbox4]].

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <code><nowiki><ref name="foo">...</ref></nowiki></code> and one or more <code><nowiki><ref name="foo"/></nowiki></code> referring to it. Someone then removed the <code><nowiki><ref name="foo">...</ref></nowiki></code> but left the <code><nowiki><ref name="foo"/></nowiki></code>, which results in a <strong class="error">big red error</strong> in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <code><nowiki><ref name="foo"/></nowiki></code> with a copy of the <code><nowiki><ref name="foo">...</ref></nowiki></code>; I ''did not'' re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the ''remaining'' instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove '''all''' instances of the named reference so as to not leave any <strong class="error">big red error</strong>.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at [[User talk:AnomieBOT]] so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at [[User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer]]. Thanks! [[User:AnomieBOT|AnomieBOT]][[User talk:AnomieBOT|<font color="#888800">⚡</font>]] 12:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC) <small style="color:#888">If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{tlx|bots|2=optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.</small>

Revision as of 12:09, 12 March 2009

User:Anomie/please quote replies

User:Ryulong/CPenguin

You seem to be the only one taking care of this article, and I'm guessing you're a lot more knowledgeable about the topic than I am. Anyway, I was wondering why all the parentheses in the plot section are included, example: "Lefeinish (Lufenian)". Is it because the word in the parenthesis refers to the later version's names, and if so, are they really necessary? I've also sent user:Gary King a similar message here. Thanks. The Prince (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly right. At some point a year or so ago, I got sick of the random mish-mash people had made of it, so I went through and changed everything to use the original NES translation. I then put alternates in parentheses so people coming here after playing later remakes wouldn't be too confused. If you remove the parentheticals, expect people to resume changing names randomly to match their favorite translation; this might be held off if you add a note explicitly pointing out the translation used. And if you choose the NES translation, I will be able to help revert changes; I am not familiar with any other translation, so I would not be able to assist if you choose any other translation.
The remake sections originally contained additional information on translation and gameplay changes, but I see that has been removed since. I suppose that's because there are no "reliable" sources for it, but IMO the article is worse for it.
BTW, if you want to talk to some people who are very familiar with this game in all its incarnations, visit the GameFAQs forum. Too bad nothing there is considered a reliable source. Anomie 01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could also use an Edit Notice to let people know what the article's conventions are before they edit. Gary King (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that the original terms from the North American NES version be used since they were the first ones to be established in any English-language release of the game. I like Gary's idea of an Edit Notice, like in this article. If you want to add back any information that I have removed, then feel free to do so; any incorrect edits made by me must be reverted by someone familiar with the subject. The reason I removed so much information was because I thought the section's large size affected readability (at least for me), but again, if there's any information you believe should be included, don't hesitate in adding it back. As for reliable sources, I'm sure we can find something in reviews about the other versions from IGN, GameSpot etc. The Prince (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the reasoning for using the NES translation; it's actually the same reasoning I used originally. I would like to add back some of the information, but I have no reliable sources so I won't. If you come across anything reliable about Nintendo's censorship of the English version, bugs fixed/not fixed in the remakes, the gameplay changes for Origins (particularly easy versus normal modes), or DoS's lack of anything besides even-easier mode, let me know. Anything about how many of the monsters and some of the game mechanics were based on D&D (and how some monsters were changed for the English version to be further from D&D) might be interesting to work in the development section too. Anomie 04:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you know if I find anything. The Prince (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CDCVesselSanitationScore

Thanks for your help with this template. It works well now.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFDMergeFromCleaner

The test run appears to have worked perfectly. The only tweak that I'd suggest is the addition of a "(talk)" link to the right of the article link in the report's "AFD merge to" column:

Page AFD merge to Redirect to Note
Fraternity and Sorority Pins Fraternities and sororities (talk) Fraternity and sorority pins
List of Springfield Elementary School students List of characters in The Simpsons (talk) List of recurring characters in The Simpsons
Lu-Tze List of Discworld characters (talk) Discworld characters
The No Game Sid Sackson (talk) A Gamut of Games

Thanks again for doing this! It will be very helpful. —David Levy 07:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partially in response to your bot's work, I wrote {{afd-merged-from}}. It should be directly substitutable (diff) for {{afd-mergefrom}} following a completed merge. There is a little background at Template talk:Afd-mergefrom#Should template be removed after performing the merge?. Flatscan (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 14:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LivingBot

Argh! This is really annoying me; I had to ask someone for help and you seemed like a knowledgeable person, so here goes (maybe you could forward this on if you didn't know):

I have my basic bot, which I'm playing around with. It can load my user page and display it to me. However, when it tries to grab the "edit this page" (I'm using a php framework btw), it gets an "IP address blocked" sort of a message ("open proxy"). This is despite the bot being logged in and the page itself using my username.

What am I doing wrong? Please help, Jarry1250 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... the IP address for the server on which I am running the bot is quite similar to this "open proxy": mine is 65.254.250.101 and I get presented with "Editing from 65.254.224.34 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled" when I try to edit. How can I get this sorted? Jarry1250 (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be that your hosting company has a transparent proxy set up that is making your traffic seem to be coming from 65.254.224.34; you could try having the bot download http://whatismyip.com/ and see what IP address is reported. If that is the case, and you can have that turned off, that may well solve your problem. Otherwise, you'll just have to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Maybe an admin will "soften" it to anon only, or maybe the open proxy has since been closed and it can be unblocked completely (I do note the block notice at User talk:65.254.224.34 references a domain that is now on a different netblock). Or you could always find a better hosting company... Anomie 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of my latest comments on my application for bot approval appear of the big parent page, just the individual sub-page. Any ideas? Jarry1250 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try purging the (parent) page. Anomie 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously need to take a wikibreak. I just can't see the wood for the trees. Oh, and I'm up to 4 edits where the bot has picked out articles, I've checked them and the people actually were dead. There are, unfortunately some false positives I could just never completely eradicate, so it mught have to be manually assisted after all, we'll see.Jarry1250 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) Okay, so now I'm getting bored of manually changing the pages; I've decided a bot would be useful for a slightly different task (same application). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous task wasn't bad, just probably better as "reporting these articles for human attention" than fixing it itself. The new task is more appropriate for an automatic fix. BTW, did you get the email I sent you? Anomie 20:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and changed appropriately. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Anomie 21:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. Trial complete. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned refs bot

The da Vinci Barnstar
Very elegant bot, much help with keeping sources in order in highly edited articles. Nice work. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Anomie 02:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err... changing link names in a template that is not substituted breaks all old uses. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, go ahead and change it back. But all new uses of the template for IFDs/FFDs since mid-December have been broken, not sure what to do there. Anomie 12:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panic

I was just running the remnants of the task I got permission for LivingBot to do, when, after a couple, the bot jumped logins from the bot account to this account. (I think this was because of another tab I had open logging in.) Is there anything that can be done, or is it too late now? It's a shame to have approximately 50 edits that should have been on the bot account on my contribs. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing you can do about it. I suppose if you really wanted to, you could ask one of the sysadmins to change the user on those edits in the database, but it's a near certainty they'd say "No". Anomie 22:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick request

Hi there, I was wondering if it would be possible for you to sort the names at List of people from Akron, Ohio by last name? If not, I'll pop into WP:BOTR for someone. Thanks for your time! §hepTalk 17:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have just saved me a lot of time. Thank you very much! §hepTalk 02:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No problem. FYI, the perl snippet used was
perl -nwe 'BEGIN { %people=(); $cols=1; } if(/\Q{{Multicol-break}}\E/){ $cols++; } elsif(/^\*\[\[[^]]*? ([^] ]+(?: Jr\.?| II)?)\]\]/){ $people{"$1 $_"}=$_; } else { die "WTF?"; } END { my @keys=sort keys %people; my $percol=@keys/$cols; $x=0; while(($k=shift @keys)){ print $people{$k}; if(++$x>=$percol){ print "{{Multicol-break}}\n"; $x=0; } } }'
Anomie 02:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bot.

Will run and continue to become more improved weither you like it or not because I dont give a damn about approval and it may not look like much but in time it will be perfected just like any other bot on Wikipedia.

WP:IAR states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." well I am applying that to my bot so it can IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN this aging collection of knowledge that everyone has spent there time on Earth helped make reality. AndysCrogz1 (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Anomie thanks for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. I am glad you see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. It looks like a lot of editors are making a point to comment on your statements, which means you made some really good points. Ikip (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FilperBot

Sorry about the unclosing, I inadvertantly picked up an old version when putting a comment on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FilperBot I. With User:Signalhead, I have previous knowledge of this user under other names and would like him to be a good editor, however his behaviour last time got worse quite quickly. --Stewart (talk | edits) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It would be nice if he becomes a good editor, but until he does do so the community has no reason to trust him to run a bot. Personally, I don't think a new user wanting a bot is a good sign, but I'd like to be proven wrong. Anomie 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Code review

Well, it seems those long, empty hours in my diary have just been filled. ;) - Jarry1250 (t, c) 07:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I've worked through most points. Would you mind checking that the ones I've struck though on my talk page are indeed fixed in User:LivingBot/WikibotDev? Much better than before (and so different now from the original code I can almost call it my own), but still a few things left to do. I did try, md5 hases with PHP's md5() function, but it thought they were wrong every time. Obviously, echo's and so forth will need tidying, but the major bases have been covered, no? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few things yet, besides what's still unstruck:
  • You have a bug in postAPI, in the extremely unlikely case that $postdata doesn't have a '&' in it. If adding that '&' is conditional at all, make it conditional on $postdata = for correct behavior.
  • You should probably urlencode $username and $password.
  • I just realized that the repeated "array_shift"s to get the page_id will break if the title is entered in a non-normalized form. Instead, pull $array['query']['pages'] explicitly, do one array_shift on that, and then access ['page_id'] explicitly.
  • create_page will probably fail on an API error.
  • You shouldn't mess around with the continuation values the API returns, as you're doing in your category function. Just urlencode it and you'll be fine.
  • You're still not going to be correctly handling edit conflicts. Sure, it will always be possible to get around it, but as it is right now it's impossible to not get around it. You need two functions: one to get the old page text + edit tokens, and one to take the edit tokens + the new page text and perform the edit.
  • Your page editor will think it always succeeds if you edit a page with "success" in its title. Don't use strpos to try to check the responses.
Anomie 23:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IRC navigation templates

Just wanted to let you know I left you a reply at WikiProject Computing#IRC navigation templates Tothwolf (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to focus on the discussion by reading it

.... instead of obsessing about me for a paragraph. I didn't read the rest of your post any more than you read mine, or the one it was in response to. So, when you decide to stop inflaming the situation by focusing on attacking editors who repeat themselves in response to request to repeat themselves, let me know if you actually include any discussion.

The best way to show that your intention is to focus on the discussion, by the way, is to focus on the discussion, not to introduce your response by rambling on about another editor's comments in a manner that only shows you did not read the discussion, so you can't possibly focus on it.

You made your choice. --KP Botany (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Checkup

Hey there. I would love for you to take a look at my bots code. Drop me a line on irc now (if your there) Current username = Addshore_ Thanks. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 22:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:AnomieBOT

Hi Anomie. You volunteered (bravely!) to have a look at the source code for this BRFA. Could you email me so I can send it to you? Many thanks. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 15:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:File:Super NES designs.png

Quoted from User talk:Fastily:
You couldn't take a few seconds to slap the appropriate non-free image template on File:Super NES designs.png based on the contents of the {{Non-free use rationale}} template? It's things like this that give non-free image taggers a bad name. Anomie 11:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Two Things:

  1. That tag was a Di-no license tag, not a {{Non-free use rationale}} tag.
  2. I find it rather surprising and offensive to have just received such brash comments from an editor with your experience and stature. Please avoid making such personal attacks in the future. - Fastily (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
  1. Yes. {{Non-free use rationale}} was the tag the uploader put on the page, which specifically stated where the image came from and its non-free copyright status. The uploader just left off the "license" template (which isn't really a license so much as "Yes, this is a fair-use image"), possibly because we don't have one specifically for images from magazine articles.
  2. Where is a personal attack? Back when I watched the village pump, a fairly common complaint was "drive-by tagging": where someone slaps a tag on an article instead of taking two seconds to just fix the problem. I was simply pointing out that that particular edit exemplifies that behavior.
Good day. Anomie 12:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for this edit. I coulda swore I followed the instructions right.--Rockfang (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't think the instructions mention that you need to edit the preloaded title and template for requests beyond the first, actually. Anomie 22:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EL bot for film articles

I assume that you were the creator of the Anomiebot that is removing the IMDb-etc. links from the film infoboxes and putting a link in the EL sections. The same discussion took place over at the TV community, and I was wondering if we could request a duplicate bot (or maybe could we get our articles tacked on) for the TV pages?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem doing this, but I'll need more details: which templates, which parameters, which replacement external link templates (if any), and can you give me a link to the discussion? Also, is there a convenient category or other list of other external link templates (like Category:Film external link templates) the bot can look for? Anomie 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a similar category (Category:Television external link templates). The discussions took place twice (on two different pages. the second discussion was started by someone who did not realize the first discussion had taken place). The first discussion, and the second discussion. The second one garnered more attention (probably because most people don't frequent the infobox talk page. The main template is Template:Infobox Television. When you say, EL templates, are you referring to those IMDb templates that are used in EL sections? If so, we use the same ones as the Film community, except that they don't use Template:Tv.com (we do). I think we opted to allow the official website to stay in the box (for now), and only move IMDb and TV.com to the EL sections. As for "parameters", I'm not sure what you mean. If you can explain that a bit more I'll try and give you those as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You answered the question about parameters already: imdb_id and tv_com_id, but not the website or production_website. Consensus looks good at the discussions too. I'll file a BRFA shortly (it'll be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 25). Anomie 01:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I really appreciate it. We've kind of been doing this all by hand lately, and when I noticed that the film bot had managed to get approved (and actually saw a couple articles on my list get swapped out), I thought I'd shoot you a line since it's virtually an identical procedure. I'll spread the news to the people over at the TV community. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going trough the first logs of the botrun, and I notice it makes a recurring "error". Many articles, like for instance Dances_with_Wolves, have their Ext. links as a h3 under "References". This seems to be a common convention in some Film articles. Anyways, the bot ignores this h3 section and adds the links (often for a 2nd time). I think this is a case that could relatively easily be correct, and it will help avoid some cleanup work. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I'll stop the bot until I get that fixed. BTW, in the future don't hesitate to stop the bot following the instructions on its user page (in this case, by editing User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/TemplateReplacer13). Anomie 21:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure to do that next time. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 00:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is apparently an issue with the TV articles as well. Someone came to the talk page to notify us of what was going on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The version of the code for the TV project hasn't started running yet. The code did have the same bug, though, which I'm in the process of testing the fix for now. Anomie 23:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you know what. I saw "Miami Vice", and immediately thought someone was letting us know about the television show. I didn't notice the "film" attached to the title of the page. My bad on that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, and thanks for alerting me since User:El Greco didn't see fit to. Anomie 02:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem should be fixed now; if either of you see any more problems, put any non-whitespace at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/TemplateReplacer13 to stop the bot task and drop me a note here. Anomie 02:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • One suggestion, your bot's edit summary sends people here, but what about after you archive this? perhaps create a subpage to explain the bot's activity instead (the content of which could just be a reproduction of this thread). –xeno (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I suddenly get a ton of talk page messages, this'll hang around until January 2010. I'll keep that in mind for the future, though. Anomie 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped the bot because it seems it has trouble with recognizing html comments after Ext.link headers. See addition of section where it already exists. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Should be fixed now. Anomie 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

official template

Maybe you already know about this but some of your bot's edits like this one doesn't make much sense. I can understand why you would want to remove the link to the official site from the infobox but it should probably check to see if it's already in the EL section before adding it there. Also, the official template only has one parameter, and that's the link to the website. The name it put after that is not being used. For An Angel (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot actually does check for links already being present; in that case, the infobox contained "http://www.moondancealexander.com" while the External links section had "http://www.moondancealexander.com/". I've made a change to take that into account in the future. As for the extra parameter, it's ignored by {{official}} so it doesn't hurt anything for it to be there. Anomie 01:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SNES article blurb in Edge Magazine

Just got my hard copies of the magazine today, and I copied up the blurb on the SNES article to my talk page. Check it out. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot request

Hi Anomie I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 26 has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to User:Anomie/Sandbox4.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT 12:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]