User talk:Anomie/Archives/2021

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Anomie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I just noticed this and this and this and that makes me

And just a couple days after your last mailing list announcement.

Well, Happy New Year and I hope you're doing OK. wbm1058 (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it made me sad too. WMF management had been seeming to be getting disconnected from the actual Wikimedia mission for years, but I didn't think it would get that bad that quickly. I had a rough few months in there, but I'm settling in well at a new job now . Thanks for the well-wishes! Anomie⚔ 02:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Pursuant to your comments over at TfD, I think we should consider moving forward with mass-deletions/redirections. I was thinking of keeping {{Use American English}} and {{Use Canadian English}} separate and deleting/merging all others into {{Use British English}} or {{Use Commonwealth English}} (preferably the prior as its use is clearer). I'm not sure whether or not to keep {{Use Oxford spelling}} but it appears to serve the same use as {{Use Canadian English}}. Of course, this further extends to the talk-page templates {{British English}} et al. What do you think? IceWelder [✉] 11:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not likely to have time to help much, but I'd like to see it happen. Focus on determining which languages have an actual difference in spelling, lexicon, and/or grammar when written in an encyclopedic register. I think that will be key, if you don't keep it focused then people will probably get away with pointing out differences in spoken language and less formal registers, or just claiming that their national variant exists while ignoring the question of difference entirely. Try to get consensus that a requirement for a variant template is having documentation somewhere as to what exactly the difference is when written in an encyclopedic register. Anomie⚔ 13:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I will check that soon, thanks. I'm not exactly full of spare time right now either, so please ping me if I forget. IceWelder [✉] 16:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you :). I was recently notified AnomieBot is now closing reviews. I'm not sure if this has been happening all along but this function seems to be working only intermittently based on the backlogs I've been seeing. THANK YOU however for this supremely useful function, and the intent behind it, as it will editors a lot of time!!

Secondly, an update request. Could you please update the way AnomieBot closes reviews, or inactivate this function until the way it works is updated. I updated the way peer reviews were closed some time ago to fix a number of errors that were creeping in and AnomieBot is reintroducing the same errors again. The new instructions are VERY similar to the old instructions but the use of templates has changed and I request you have a look and inactivate AnomieBot's closing function until it's fixed so that the errors don't proliferate again.

Thirdly, an extra feature request. Peer reviews can now be listed as pre FA reviews and these often linger for quite some time. When you have time (not urgent) I was wondering if we could work out a way not to auto close those reviews. It MAY be as simple as just not closing any review listed in Template:FAC peer review sidebar although I honestly do not have any idea if that's hard or difficult to implement :P.

Many thanks, Tom (LT) (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

AnomieBOT has been closing peer reviews since 2017, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 76. You've not made it clear what exactly you changed, or whether there was consensus for this anywhere. Anomie⚔ 01:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Anomie. I wasn't aware of this bot having this function and I don't recall peer review being notified when it was created which explains my initial confusion and lack of keeping you in the loop. However I am super, super happy to see that there is a bot with this function as was on my to-do list to request a bot. My posts about these changes is within Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review/Archive 12. Regarding my changes, there is very rarely any comment at the talk page of PR which leaves me quite lonely sometimes so some changes have "no objections" and others have "consensus". I hope these are improving PR and you can see the rationale on those discussion pages. If you're interested, there are a number of reasons for the changes as I document there as well.

To summarise I would like to request three changes to your bot:

1. When closing a review, on the the peer review page,
   • the old instructions were: replace {{Peer review page|topic = X}} with {{subst:PR/archive}}
   • change to the new instructions, which are: replace {{Peer review page|topic = X}} with {{Closed peer review page}}. (this standardises the closure message and makes future changes to the message easier)
2. When closing a review, on the article's talk page,
   • the old instructions were: replace the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page with {{Old peer review|archive = N}}
   • change to the new instructions, which are: replace the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page with {{subst:Close peer review|archive = N}}, (this includes other information at the time of PR closure)
3. Also, if possible, it would be appreciated if reviews listed on Template:FAC peer review sidebar were not automatically closed, because since this template was created that venue has been very active. If that's not possible it is not a big a deal as the other changes

Hope this helps, thanks for responding so promptly as I understand based on your talk page message you may have other off-wiki commitments --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the details.  Done FYI, I wound up just copying all parameters being passed to {{Peer review}} when changing it to {{subst:Close peer review}} instead of trying to specifically copy or add |archive=.

As for the notice or lack thereof, it looks like AnomieBOT replaced BU RoBOT in that task, as part of the conversation at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_73#VeblenBot that had people involved in PR at the time participating. Anomie⚔ 14:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, I am super grateful regarding this functionality as it is very useful to have a bot in the background helping out with this. It is one of those pleasant surprises that often emerge relating to peer review. Only last week I discovered Wikipedia:Nominations viewer. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Would it be difficult for you to add peer review to your feedback request service functionality? There would be 12 possible categories. 11 are based on categories 1 to 11 on WP:PR and then a 12th category called "All peer reviews". I will populate the FRS listing at WP:FRS based on the editors at WP:PRV who nominated to be autocontacted. This would usurp the functionality provided by the now inactive User:KadaneBot and also have the benefit I can use User:Yapperbot to keep the FRS list and volunteer lists up to date. The lists need to be kept separate as one is basically a plain text list intended for people to read and find volunteers, and the other FRS list is designed for a bot to use. If possible, I think this change will help with future maintenance burden by putting FRS-type listings all the same spot using the same tools and bots.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

AnomieBOT has nothing to do with WP:FRS. Anomie⚔ 23:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

And the actual operator of FRS has been inactive since August 2020, so will not be available to add this task. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

 Self-trout you both make excellent points. Thank you for your help so far. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, not sure if I did something wrong in this one case, but I apparently assigned the wrong userid when using Unsignedhelper.js at Talk:Schutzstaffel in this edit (noticed by Diannaa and corrected in this edit; more info in this edit). I've used your script many times before with no problems, one time in which it searched >300 versions, and generated the right unsig comment. I really don't know what happened in this case. Many thanks for the script; it's great! (Adding Obenritter.) Mathglot (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. I'm not sure how that bit of the script ever worked; maybe something in how browsers handle unrecognized escapes changed in the past 9 years or so. Anomie⚔ 02:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries Mathglot, thanks for informing me accordingly. --Obenritter (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks, Anomie. Do I have to wipe my common.js, or purge it, or anything, or am I good to go? (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: You shouldn't have to do anything like that. At most, you might need to bypass your browser cache. Anomie⚔ 12:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that I think you have a bug in your Bot's code – it is ignoring the presence of the {{In use}} template and making changes. See the revision history for DR Class V 180 for details. Thanks and regards. – Iain Bell (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The TemplateSubster task does not try to honor {{in use}}. TagDater and OrphanReferenceFixer are the only AnomieBOT tasks that currently do so. Anomie⚔ 16:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I did know it was a bot, but 1. wanted to keep the issue all together on one talk page, and 2. figured you had it on your watchlist (as well as it having an email so thought you'd get that notice as well). The wording (from the bot) was confusing to me, but after I posted I scrolled up and saw that "big red error" post you made to another user which helped me figure out what to do. TY for responding though. — Ched (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	I just wanted to say thank you for working on the pending changes bot for TFA. I'm sure that there are probably other things you could be spending your precious time on, but I appreciate that you took the time to help here. Mz7 (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Anomie⚔ 12:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

...it's a good thing that Wiktionary has an entry for faux pas. I hadn't caught the circumstances, so I just pinged "the API guru". Apologies for my being a dunce, is what I'm trying to say. Cheers, Xover (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: No problem. (: Anomie⚔ 18:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Xover: Glossary of French expressions in English#F. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Anomie. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You added - "This article includes a list of general references, but it remains largely unverified because it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (May 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"

I've looked at Wikipedia:Citing sources" and still don't know what I am doing wrong. Could you please give me an example of how any one of the references should be changed.

Thanks in advanced1 Cayman42 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cayman42: Presumably you refer to this edit. Please take a closer look at what AnomieBOT actually did - it added |date=May 2021 to a maintenance tag that was already there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi I requesting please delete CAFA Junior Women's Championship. My article is more important than his and I am still updating every hour. Thanks have a good day. Arijit Tagore (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Bonus points for you for invoking "nomic"! Nat Gertler (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Extremely helpful. Thank you for that. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Feature request: Automatically fill out edit summary "Adding unsigned template for <user>" HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, when I attempt to install any of your censorship bots, it censors everything. I mean, I know that's the most effective way to make sure there is no offending content, but that makes it hard to use. Was it made by the penguin cabal, and if so, are there any other options for content censoring? Thank you :) Leapinglizards5 (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC) August 29, 2021

Hello. First, a quick note on terminology: it's a user script, not a bot. The two scripts in question are indeed intended to censor everything, it's a bit of a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the infeasibility of reliably censoring only the "offensive" content when there are such varying standards as to what is considered "offensive" that basically anything might be considered offensive by someone somewhere. There is no "cabal", that's just another bit of humor. I don't know of any serious attempts at options for content censoring on Wikipedia, but you might look at general-purpose software like the ones listed at comparison of content-control software and providers. Anomie⚔ 16:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Anomie,

Thanks for your note on the Hakea pedunculata Talk page. I call myself "sentient" and "botanist", but definitely a complete dunce as a computer programmer and I have no idea what you mean in your add. Please help me to understand the problem. When I look at the ABRS reference in each of the first four articles in the list, I am taken to a relevant reference. I don't see a bold red error and I don't see these articles in the Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. Maybe if your were to explain the problem in just one article with a bit more detail (that an 8 year-old might understand), a slightly older editor would be happy to fix all the others. (Here, on my talk page or the H. pedunculata page would be fantastic.) Gderrin (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I've since found a mistake in the H. pedunculata article, but not the others. Gderrin (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gderrin: The bot's message on that talk page is not saying there are errors in any other page. It is saying that it found references named "ABRS" on other pages, which you might copy into Hakea pedunculata to resolve the problem there. Anomie⚔ 00:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess that means the problem's sorted. Much appreciated. Gderrin (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible you can edit the bot so when it sees multiple WikiProject United States with different subcategories such as states or military that it compiles them under one WikiProject??? Bigmike2346 (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, your bot is malfunctioning, as shown by this diff. I have not re-added the blacklisted google.com/amp/, as you can see. Please fix this issue. Carlstak (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Carlstak: The bot is working fine. In Special:Diff/1057490954 you removed the instance of <ref name=reese> that contained the content of the reference, but left <ref name=reese /> elsewhere in the article, leading to a big red error (here). AnomieBOT tried to fix this by copying the content of the reference to the remaining <ref name=reese />, but it couldn't because the URL you removed is on the blacklist. Thus it complained on its talk page for a human to fix it, most likely by replacing the remaining instance of <ref name=reese /> with a non-blacklisted reference. Anomie⚔ 01:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Now bots are complaining? Obviously the cyborg is here. Just kidding. I fixed the markup. Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)