This is an archive of past discussions with User:Yobot. 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.
Hi, I would like to use the Yobot to add the {{WikiProject Romania}} to the appropriate articles talk pages (basically BRFA 9). I couldn't find anywhere any instructions on how to do that. Can you please direct me to the right place? Thanks a lot! --Codrin.B (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Codrin.B if you wan to run it manually by your self to save time, energy and complains then you'll first have to download AWB and gain access to it if you do not have already. do this and then I can give you further instructions of how to do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Codrin.B I would prefer if you do it. At least some of the work. You need to create the list of pages by loading wished categories and subcategories.Then please post them somewhere in your userspace and I can do the rest. I do not want to risk creating the list by myself since category trees tend to be a real mess. If you could also exclude the pages that already have the banner by using List comparer then it would be great. The bot can do the rest. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
That's no problem. I can generate the list from the category. Do you want the article or the "Talk:" version? However I am not well versed on using the List comparer. How would I find the articles that have the tag? Can the bot skip those articles which have the tag? Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Have a look through my very latest contribs - those pages have nothing to do with Romania (which is often evident from article name), and I have only started reverting. This is unacceptable. Materialscientist (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Some articles from my reverts are on the list, but some not (Guam, Grey seal, Vladimir Lenin) - could you try to understand why Yobot edited them? Materialscientist (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed this too, some arbitrary Croatian pages were tagged. Please make sure not to reactivate this task until the lists are reviewed... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Joy and Materialscientist: please someone review the lists. I started the task after 2 days (52 hours) of no comments on WikiProject Romania. I can also provide the list of pages affected. 534 pages of list 1, 319 of list 2 and 282 of list 3. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The onus is primarily on people who composed the list to make sure it makes sense, and only after they explain and confirm that they're a-OK with it, then someone else should also verify that. I asked the author on their talk page. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It is too huge. Due to the inaccuracy of the list, it might be better to simply abandon this task. So many pages are redlinked, what if you had created them right after your run? I might be wrong here, but no idea why the redlinks were provided. OccultZone (Talk) 11:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, the 3 lists above were generated based on 6-level deep subcategories of Category:Romania. A small number of articles in such an automatically generated list are false positives and will be promptly removed, as people report them. I already spent the time to remove a lot of articles that seemed as inappropriate. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania/Drafts/Articles that need tagging list which I provided initially has even less false positives, as it is a generated out of 5-level deep subcategories of Category:Romania. I could go even lighter or generate the list in a different way, if needed. But I think is impossible not to have false positives, which I am prepared to deal with individually as reported. Suggestions? --Codrin.B (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Codrin.B the category trees are really broken in many cases. For starts, please remove any false positives and work on the direction to remove incorrect tags. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I did some more cleanup on each of the lists I provided initially. What list has GoingBatty provided and how was it generated? Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool. I reviewed that list and indeed the majority were incorrectly tagged with {{WP:RO}}. But I found a few, 4-5 at least, that were correctly tagged even though the word "Romania" was not present, such a Talk:Great Synagogue (Bucharest) and Talk:Greek colonies in Dacia. The last one I don't know how to revert since it is a red link now. I'll keep reviewing GoingBatty's list and the original lists, and clean up. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The 3 lists (1,2,3) have been generated using 6-level deep subcategories Category:Romania, so they have more false positives, although I cleaned up a lot of them. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania/Drafts/Articles that need tagging list which I provided initially has far less false positives, as it is a generated out of 5-level deep. So I suggest using that instead is safer. But even before using any list, I wonder if you could eliminate first those articles that do not contain these words, per GoingBatty's previous script. And only then run the tagging. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The second article on that list is 1926 Slavery Convention, which contains the word "Romania", so it should be tagged according to your rule. Applying this logic generally would mean that this article would be tagged for 99 country projects. This doesn't seem helpful at all. And that's, like I said, the second article on your list. Fram (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that's not a frequent situation and yet a debatable case. There are indeed a few articles on international agreements where Romania is a participant and which are correctly part of Romania related categories. I don't see a problem adding corresponding project tags for the participating countries in such agreements, since WP:NOTPAPER. But let's not get extreme with corner case examples. 98% of those country projects are not using Yobot as far as I know. In any case, I removed that specific article from the list to avoid any discussion. I think if we can apply the filtering rules above to the list in question, we will have a very streamlined list with very few false positives. The remaining false positives can be removed on a case by case basis manually, as people find them. I volunteer for that work and to handle messages for any complaints. But I don't think is the end of the world if a small set of articles get tagged incorrectly. People will either remove them immediately or report the issue. In any case, I am looking for some constructive help on how to further filter the list if necessary. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you best totally abandon this, Magioladitis. That list starts with 17 pages on the Moldovan football competition from recent years. While Moldova has a historical strong link to Romania, it makes absolutely no sense to tag these pages for Romania (it would be like tagging pages about Belgium with the Wikiproject Netherlands, which wouldn't be appreciated ;-) ). The rest of the list, which contains mostly Romania-related pages, does contain too many similar problematic pages, either to do with Moldova or purely international pages. If CodrinB can't or won't make the effort to manually check such list before coming here, then you should never base a tagging spree on a list he provides, IMO. Fram (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Family Support in the US
Yobot: Thank you for visiting my page. Agencies, while important to families, may not serve all the families that family support refers to (e.g., long term service populations; mental health populations). Very nice to meet you. JARacino (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)JARacinoJARacino (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
On your subject in Romania, Nancy Roseneau of MacComb-Oakland, Michigan was known to work in orphanages there back in the 1980s to help move children to families, and in 2006 (in state report with Walker in 2006) remained a strong supporter of families for all children. JARacino (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)JARacinoJARacino (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
What are these edits?
Resolved
See here and here The former just seems unnecessary but is the latter even accurate? Imagine if every MiLB farm team had a tag for every MLB team with which it's been associated... Is that what we want? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I remember Kumioko tagging talk pages with WP United States on anything with the word "America" in it. Ahhh, the good old days. Bgwhite (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite I think this has to do entirely with what the WikiProject thinks it concerns it. The WikiProjects rights remain unclear in many cases. What will we do if a WikiProject decides that every single page is under its scope? This is not a rhetorical question. I do not know the answer. I recall WikiProjecr redirects tagging every single redirect at some point in the good old days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
OccultZone. I didn't know about {{yo}}. Thanks for the laugh. I don't recall Kumioko doing that and I highly doubt that he did. He usually converted WP -> WikiProject. He did add listas to {{WikiProject United States}} for biographies for a bit, which didn't need to be done. If listas is set in WP Biography, all other banners use that value. Bgwhite (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I got the approval on the WikiProject talk request as required. (see my request at WP:BOTREQ). I am confused about rule #4 though. So I can't request categories that have subcategories to be tagged? Erick (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Erick yes, I need you that you give me the list of all subcategories that you want to be tagged. I am sorry for that but this is because the category tree is most probably broken and you'll have to check it. In the past with my bot got blocked for tagging irrelevant pages that were loaded due to broken category tree. I need to minimise the risk. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The important thing is the following: Are there are "weird" categories that they should not' be tagged? Did you check and everything is safe to start? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's see, I removed "Books about pop music" because most of them focused on popular music rather than the pop music genre. Same thing with Pop music television. I'd have the bot ignore the subcategories under "Pop music record labels" as it contains artists signed under these record labels but may not be identified as a pop singer. That's all I've got. EDIT: Ignore this category: Gershwin Prize recipients. Edit 2: Quick questions, will it inherit the class rating and will it ignore talk pages already tagged under the project banner? Erick (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Erick I would like the list of the categories posted somewhere. Giving me the category list and asking me to remove some of them won't work. I know this by experience. See my talk page. It is full of complains about broken category trees. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I apologize, but I'm not understanding what you said. Also, I've been thinking of getting just pop artists tagged because sometimes they might record albums or songs not classified as pop and it can avoid bot mistaggings. Erick (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
15,219 new tags are expected in 680 categories. I posted in WikiProject's talk page and in BOTREQ page to ensure that there are no objections. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@Elekhh: Hi. As I see at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Architecture/participants you are a member of the WikiProject. Can you please post, if you have not done already, at the WikiProject's page that you requested this task? Then, if there are no disagreements for 3 days, I'll start tagging. This is just to ensure that there is consensus for this request. I would also help if I was given the exact categories in which the bot will run. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It merged two pairs of refs in this edit. It looks like it was properly done and the refs, though more notes than refs, look OK, but that version of the page is generating citation errors over those particular refs (scroll to the end). Very odd.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds17:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, if the bot is going to swap punctuation, please make sure it follows the whole string of ref/rp/efn (etc.) and get to the beginning of the reference list before moving the punctuation. The bot has just swapped a period to the middle of a string of references, which looks silly and it’s counter-productive. (The point of bot swaps is to reduce human work, no? Now I have to go through the article and fix your mistakes.) If the bot can’t do this properly then please don’t attempt the swap. Thank you very much!—Al12si (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Al12si thanks for the report and for moving the punctuation in the correct place. It's a difficult situation of 3 references where the one in the middle is given by inline citation. I'll see if there is something we can do to avoid something similar in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I sometimes feel that just getting someone to change the editor to put an instruction there might even be a more effective solution. Both ways feel logical so I often forget which way we’re supposed to go (and in some situations the “wrong” way is more logical than the “standard” way). We’re just confused :)—Al12si (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Al12si it was a perfect report! Two bugs in one! I added coverage for {{rp}} and now I can also handle cases of series of references given by tags and footnotes in a mixed way! Thanks!!!
Could you point me to the relevant section? I don't see why it should be desirable to actively change quotation marks in titles of cited works. sephia karta | dimmi22:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I still don't understand the rationale why one should want to do this in this specific context, but I leave it to you how you want to deal with this. sephia karta | dimmi22:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
sephia karta I am not Manual of Style (MoS) expert. I mainly follow the MoS. Thanks for the report and the heads up. I informed others to get some more feedback on the rationale behind it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
sephia karta. two different quotation marks were changed.
Guillemets (« or ») are not used in English. This being the English Wikipedia, sort of rules out non-English glyphs.
Curly quotation marks (" or ") shouldn't be used because they are not found on a standard English keyboard. Typewriter quotation marks (") are to be used. Instead of using two keys, early typewriters dropped the curly quotation and used only one key.
Bgwhite Yes but i) this was a title of a source and faithfully reproducing it should imo trump what we do with our text ii) the title was not in English, and not even in Latin script, so our standards for how we write English don't apply sephia karta | dimmi08:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
sephia karta We are faithfully reproducing it to the equivalent English glyph. «, " and " all mean the same thing. This is also standard with English publishers and newspapers. Remember, you are on the English Wikipedia with English Wikipedia rules. English Wikipedia rules state per WP:MOSQUOTE#Typographic conformity, Replacing non-English typographical elements with their English equivalents. For example, replace guillemets (« ») with straight quotation marks.. Also per MOS:QUOTEMARKS#Quotation marks
Also, as you are not using an English title, please use the |trans_title= parameter in the cite template. Bgwhite (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite By that logic, would you replace the Danda | in Hindi text with a full stop, because this is the English Wikipedia? I really don't think applying our standards for English to text in another language and even another script, ending up with a hybrid of two scripts, is what we should want. (On a side note, I agree with the policy to standardise punctuation in English language quotations, I just think that both titles of sources (even in English) and strings of text in other languages should be treated differently.) sephia karta | dimmi10:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Number 57 Thanks for the report. Some random pages have been tagged in the period 09:57-10:17 today (20 minutes). I can't find the source of the problem. They share some common in title with some of the correct pages tagged but nothing more. I started reverting. You are welcome to help. I fixed everything till 10:00. 17 minutes to go. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Peter coxhead This practice is extremely discouraged. It does not allow other editors to add any links to the See also or External links section. It is also a "hidden section". Is it possible to break up your footer into two templates? One that only contains the see also links and the other only containing external links. Maybe Magioladitis knows a better way. Bgwhite (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead and Bgwhite: I removed the reflist section from the template. This will prevent page from showing to the list of pages without references section. References should be directly given into pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
There are only multiple pages for the list of botanists by author abbreviation because otherwise the page would be too long – conceptually this is a single page (e.g. there's a single navigation template) so the header and footer needs to be exactly the same on each "page". I see no reason in this case not to use a template. If you insist, I will split the footer template into two, but I really don't see why this should be necessary. Anyway, the bot needs to be stopped from interfering until this issue is settled (added reference sections are in the wrong place). Peter coxhead (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Peter coxhead hi. I excluded the pages from today's fix. (I hope I did!) I believe we should move references section out of the footer as we did in all other similar cases in the past in other series of articles. I believe Frietjes recalls similar cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi there.
My name is Lyle Darrin and I'm a descendent of Daniel Darrin
who fought in the battle of Flatbush under the command of George Washington.
I'm pretty sure Henry Knox was there too and I don't see this historic battle in his wiki.
I saw that you did the last edit so I thought I would bring it to your attention.
My email is lyledarrin@gmail.com. Can you please let me know if I'm wrong? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.245.30 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I redid your alteration from samloem to sanloem. The name of the island is កោះរុងសន្លឹម Koh Rong Sanloem. There is, however a sizable ignorant community in Cambodia - even among the guest house owners on the island, who are barely able to write English - using Samloem among other variants.
I presume you can't read or write Khmer. I have the whole subject explained here: http://paradise-bungalows.com/paradise-bungalows-blog at bottom of page. BTW it is spelled correctly on Google maps. All The Best
Wikirictor (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
addition: Ochheuteal is the familiar way of spelling it - let me know, whether you need evidence
Hello, it seems you've reviewed my article on my uncle Mironov Andrei Nikolayevich. You requested I added extra links, as the article is an "orphan", well Andrei wasn't mention in any wikipedia articles, just The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Independent and other sources I dutifully cited.
Your requests are impossible to fulfil. Does this mean that my uncle's wiki page will not be live?
Hello. Can I ask you why you add a useless and ugly space between the categories and the stub templates while removing the nice and aesthetic space between the external links and the navigation templates? You should do the exact opposite to make articles look better! Cranellea (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC).
Thanks for your answer. However, the link you provide redirect to a section that does not answer my question. Could you please do? Cranellea (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC).
Cranellea Manual of Style says that stub templates should be placed after categories and with two newlines in between them. WP:STUBSPACING reads " It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it." If you provide me a link of what the bot did I can write you more. The bot only applies Manual of Style rules. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not true, M. Yobot has misunderstood the Manual of Style on the blank-line issue. The MoS says: "Include one blank line above the heading, and optionally one blank line below it." That means include blank lines between headings and text (and note: "optionally"). It does not mean include blank lines between headings and sub-headings. It makes no sense to do the latter, but that's what Yobot does (repeatedly, even when reverted, which violates the MoS). SlimVirgin(talk)18:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Problems on tagging for WikiProject Disambiguation and apologies
Due to some weird problem, most probably on API, when I tried to save a list of 1Mb to my sandbox I got a gateway timeout problem. The page looked OK, the html output was OK but when I tried to get info on the link on the page (only bluelinks) via AWB it grabbed the info from a previous revision of the sandbox. This resulted in a bad list. I realised within 20 minutes and reverted at about 300 edits. They still be some leftovers.
Second problem was the problem of dab page with talk pages that redirect to a non dab page. The bot did several edits and added banners to wrong pages. I fixed the code quite fast but there are certainly bad tags on pages. My apologies for that. I work on reverting the bad edits. Of course anyone is welcome revert edits on sight if they are the result of bad tagging. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I have checking the Police Gazette UK page and it looks as if my reference to the Sun Newspaper (November 1793), which I believe aids the understanding of the development of the Police Gazette (at a date when very few if any copies survive) has been removed by yourself ?
Rather than just put it back - I was keen to understand why you had done so ? Did you feel it was not relevant ?
Non-breaking space (U+00A0) is not an "invisible control character". Even if you do not like it (why?), it must not be replaced by the regular space (U+0020). If there is any legitimate reason to replace, please use , {{nbsp}} or whatever else that produces an equivalent non-breaking space. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Mikhail Ryazanov, first off, you need to give the article's name. Roughly 60 articles a day have invisible characters added. Invisible characters should never be used. How in the world does an editor know that it is even there? All characters need to be visible to an editor. 99% of invisible characters are not needed. This is a case of garbage in, garbage out. Bgwhite (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
U+00A0 is not invisible, it appears as a space and works as it is designed to. If you mean that it should be visually distinct from U+0020, then please explain how can you, for example, tell the differences between "é", "é" and "е́". ;–) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Did you just edit one page or corrected the behavior of the bot? (Regarding "provide a wikilink" — OK, I will. But the bot itself should monitor reverted edits...) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mikhail Ryazanov: I check reverted edits once per 2 or 3 days since I do not get many the last few months. This is due to the fact that bot actions became less controversial. I fixed the one page and looking for a more permanent solution for these cases. In the past, I checked ~10,000 pages with invisible non-breaking spaces and the intersection of those actually needed the space and those wehere AWB failed to added the visible version was far less than 1%. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"Remove invisible unicode control characters", Yobot vs HotCat
On another aspect of the above, Yobot appears to dislike something about the way HotCat formats category names. Yesterday I did a large amount of cleanup work on city categories. This morning I come in and found that Yobot followed behind a large number of these edits and cleaned up the category names. Same edit summary as above. Diffs show no visible difference before to after Yobots edits, though if it's removing "invisible" characters, I wouldn't expect to see a difference. But the categories are functional both before and after Yobot's edits. And they were added through HotCat. So maybe this ultimately is a HotCat bug more than a Yobot bug. But whichever, I don't think that HotCat should be adding things one way, and then Yobot coming along behind and changing things. A few link samples, but there were a *lot* more: here, here, and here.
Yobot is also inconsistent in whether or not it jumps in. A few where, AFAIK, I did thinks exactly the same actions (through HotCat), but Yobot didn't come through to fix things, are here, here, and here. So why is it fixing HotCat's output sometimes and not other times?
Ultimately, I'm not sure where the problem is, or really if there even *is* a problem. But you have a tool and a bot appearing to use conflicting rules, and the bot being inconsistent in it's application of the rules. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
TexasAndroid thanks for the comment. NicoV has reported HotCat's bug: Wikipedia_talk:HotCat#Unicode_control_characters 4 months ago. I guess you typed the category name and some other guys, copy-paste the category name in hotcat. This is the difference. With your way the indivisible character is not inherited. I may be wrong. In any case, I also has asked HotCat to disallow invisible characters at the end of the string given. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations! You are the only Robot Writer in Wikipedia, Yobot. And special congratulations to Magioladitis who is the creator of Yobot Olhaba (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey Yobot ! I just wanted to report you some changes in the Lisbon airport wiki page concerning the cancelation of the Tallin, Bellgrade and St Petersburg by TAP Portugal. "good news" TAP will only cancels it's flights to those destinations but only in winter and will restart flying there in Summer !
Hope you accept my changes about your lisbon airport modification!
Cheers
gregori — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregori-luxair (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yobot is currently set up to add the {{DEFAULTSORT}} magic word to any page containing an unusual symbol that doesn't already have the magic word. If it's going to do that, however, it needs to get it right. The hybrid taxon "Carex × abitibiana" (for instance) should sort as "Carex abitibiana", not as "Carex x abitibiana". That second X is not part of the name and has no place there. Please update your code accordingly. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Stemonitis please fix any errors on sight. If the × is removed the bot won't revisit the page. The choice of "x" was done due to many tennis articles that required "x". I 'll start fixing pages by myself too. Thanks, Yobot (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yobot is a bot, an account that uses software to automatically make fixes to Wikipedia pages. I see there have been several reverted edits at Robert Rosenkranz recently. I suggest you post at Talk:Robert Rosenkranz to see if you and your fellow editors can come to a consensus as to what should be listed on Rosenkranz's web site. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Just a reminder, the Film project does not cover biography articles. This applies to all of the film task forces as well. Those articles are covered by adding |filmbio-work-group=yes to {{WikiProject Biography}} instead. Therefore, please do not add the {{WikiProject Film}} banner to articles about actors, directors and filmmakers. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history it seems the bot is edit warring with Magioladitis over the capitalisation. If it continues then a visit to a notice board and an interaction ban is probably in order ! (sorry could not resist).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I wonder what on earth you're doing edits and adding tags to the articles like this! It doesn't make any sense actually. It's better if you could be kind enough to know what a real orphan and how it should be defined before enforcing the tag. Thank you for understanding. Textlover (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@OccultZone: and @GoingBatty: I could learn a lot from you. Thank you very much. As an apprentice, I'm looking forward to learn from anybody and improve my abilities. Please keep eye on me and guide me appropriately. If I'll do any mistake punish me on the spot. Sometimes, punishments are the best tools to learn. My aim is to bring good stuffs from the earth to Wikipedia. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Textlover (talk • contribs) 07:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I know this is picky, but when adding the parameters for these task forces, could you please omit the extra spaces before and after the "|"? Edits such as this make it harder to find articles that haven't already been tagged, such as when searching for talk pages containing "|Mexican" in AWB. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Yobot,
I'm Achala Nagodawithana and I use the wiki name of Textlover. Once again I'm in trouble due to my own stupidity. Recently I created an article Latha Walpola and you have enormously helped me to keep it safe. Thank you very much for that.
Once again I've two more articles that are nominated for speedy deletion. One of them, Dinura Pradeep Balasooriya is about my beloved husband. Honestly, I created that article not only because he is my husband, but he is doing a really important service for our old country music (Gramophone). I cannot believe that he's handling such big task together with a several fellows, dedicating his own time and wealth. Our government or the politicians never help them and never appreciate a nationally important work. That's why I wanted to encourage him admiring his service.
But now my efforts are becoming useless. My articles Dinura Pradeep Balasooriya is now suggested for speedy deletion. I really never believe that I've done a great job. But I did not wanted to do mistakes on my knowledge. If there is any way to re-correct my faults I could be very happy. Please.. Yobot I need your help again. Please help me fix my errors and keep my article alive on Wiki. Many Thanks. Textlover (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Textlover: Yobot is a bot - an automated account used to make repetitive fixes that would be too cumbersome to make manually. A bot can not do things such as add reliable sources to an article to help demonstrate notability for people. While I'm sure your husband is a wonderful person, please note that Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide states "Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends..." There are some suggestions on that page on how to create a userspace draft that can be worked on without the risk of speedy deletion. Happy New Year! GoingBatty (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Currently, WP:NYC encompasses 13,478 articles. According to a recursive search of Category:History of New York City on AWB, the category and its subcategories include 22,363 articles. Category:Geography of New York City contains 57,564 articles. I started using AWB to tag the talk pages, but it's too long and cumbersome to do this through AWB, especially since a bot can automatically give the article its rating from existing project templates. I'd appreciate Yobot's help. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
There has to be some good jokes in there... When were you born? I was born on zoology, how about you? Um, well, I was born on Magioladitis. Chants of kill and die rose thru the crowd as only vicious fiends were born on Magioladitis. Bgwhite (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Anomie I was unable to find more pages with the problem but I bet there are. Is there any tracking category so I can go and fix the problems with that problem? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello I am Saqib kifayat Recently i Edit a wiki article named Babar javedand add all information about babar javed but now when i visit this article all the information was removed and it again redirect to A&B Entertainment. I just want to remove this redirect and add the information again for feature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqib mosin (talk • contribs) 11:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It caused a stir when in April 2006 it became known that Mehdi Mahdavikia had married Samii at a ceremony in Iran in December 2005, while he was still married to his first wife, thus practising bigamy.[1][9][10][11][12]
You damaged Samira Samii private life and her reputation... all article in FOCUS are wrong!!!
She is living in Monte Carlo not Germany... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxXXX-max (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi YOBOT:
other user doesn't care about the true information.... That's really pity...
SAMIRA SAMII doenst wann ahave Wikipedia Site....
Most of the information are not correct.
Her residence???
Her age?
Her Position?
MAHDAVIKIA history is over and 10 years old....
Please try to delete the articles...
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxXXX-max (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Patrick McGuire incorrect removal of tag
Resolved
Hello. Please fix an error whereby a category tag for Patrick McGuire to be listed as a former Frickley Athletic player is being removed automatically by the bot. This player did play for Frickley and the page has good references already to prove that as factually correct, therefore the player should be categorised as such. Thank you. -- burntwoodmtb (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
please,help me in This page Hafshejan ,User Sahehco make Sabotage in this page.I am Iranian and I cant write English very well.Thanks alot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by هفشجانی (talk • contribs) 15:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I want to add more subject in this page,and they are from persian wikipedia,help me. هفشجانی (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you please help me to revoke deletion request for Girish Jhunjhnuwala profile page.
I have included more references in the article, from various news and government websites like:
[5][6]
hope these provide sufficient evidence of special notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny.mosaic (talk • contribs) 07:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Possible bug
The bot tries to get rid of ancient HTML 3 and "transitional"<br clear="both" /> constructs. I'm too lazy to check if both or all was correct, it's now obsolete. So far it's a good plan, but the bot replaces these constructs with {{clear}} instead of {{-}}, and that's a difference: {{-}} is an inline element like <span> or <br>, {{clear}} is a block element like <div> or <p> also in HTML5. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
That page contains a double fault in the relevant line (rest not checked): <br clear=both /> was never okay, the valid variant was <br clear=all />. But of course both should be replaced, also clear="all" or "both" (quoted attribute value), and > instead of /> at the end.
The replacement <br style="clear: both;" /> is good, but that's what {{-}} does, {{clear}} is very different. For <br clear=left /> (or right) it's similar, {{clear|left}} (or right) is not the same as <br style="clear: left;" /> (or right), check the source.
The block element <div> used by {{clear}} is not always allowed where the inline element <br> is allowed. Nobody (= not me, I can test at most six versions of four browsers on two Windows versions) knows where this could cause havoc, if something old still working with any HTML5 browser is replaced by something that's seriously invalid. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Essentially, block elements break the text into blocks - lists and tables are block elements. Inline elements may be used within running text without breaking the flow, such as the <i>...</i>italic and <b>...</b>boldface elements. In HTML5, the distinction has become a bit blurred, and most elements are now categorised as flow content, and the erstwhile inline elements mostly now form a subset of that, known as phrasing content. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Does it really matter in 99% of the cases? No
Did 99% of the editors who put <br clear="both"> know why they put this instead of block option? No
What is the main difference to readers? {{-}} puts in a blank line, where clear doesn't.
How are the vast majority of the <br clear="both"> being used? Block (ie before section headings)
What is easier to understand for the average editor looking at the code, {{-}} or {{clear}}? Clear
Do 99% of the editors who put {{-}} or {{clear}} choose which one for being block or inline? No
Choosing one over the other would matter if we were creating are own websites. In the end, it really doesn't matter here, especially when <br clear="both">, {{-}} and {{clear}} are already being used improperly. There already have been arguments over this in the past, including where {{clear}} should only be used. Bgwhite (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that's resolved unanimously as carry on as before, because style="clear:…" isn't supposed to be used on inline elements. Redrose64 had the relevant CSS2.1 reference, thanks. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
cite->citation unneeded "fix"
[7] Bot changed a bunch of "cite" templates to "citation" (eliding a redirect), uselessly as far as I can tell. Edit summary says it's an error fix: if it really was one, I'd appreciate an explanation of the error. If there was no actual error fixed, then please consider this message to be a bug report, as having to look over large do-nothing diffs is rather annoying. Thanks. 173.254.228.130 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the period fix, but that doesn't explain why cite was changed to citation, which didn't fix an error. The cite->citation change also made the period fix hard to find. 173.254.228.130 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Magioladitis, re: this edit, it's important not to move references. Sometimes editors add these in a certain order because that order corresponds to material in the previous sentence or paragraph. I believe this has been raised with you before, and I thought you had agreed not to do it (though I may be misremembering). Sarah (SV)(talk)22:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Sarah (SV) feel free to move them back. I think the result of the discussion was that nobody can be sure of the "correct" order of the references that was the reason this feature was never removed from AWB. Anyway, since I am not expert on this are and the main edit was only to remove the unnecessary break tag, I do not have any strong feelings on any side and the bot won't revisit this page since the CHECKWIKI error was fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Magioladitis. But it's important never to move references just in case they are in that order for a reason. I recall someone discussing this with you, and I believe it was CBM, though I'm not sure about that. Sarah (SV)(talk)23:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin You just referenced a five year old talk discussion. Really? You ping BMK and CBM, who obviously doesn't like it and both who don't like Magioladits. Really? In FA articles, references are to be in chronological order. Why don't you ping people at FA or somebody who like it? I love how editors say they put refs how it corresponds to something in the sentence. 100% readers won't notice that and 100% of editors coming by later won't notice that, especially as 99.9% of all articles, including all FAs are in chronological order. This is about making a mountain out of a molehill and stiring up trouble. Bgwhite (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Bgwhite, please give a link to where the FA criteria require footnotes be placed in chronological order. Such a thing would make no sense. Changing the order of refs violates WP:CITEVAR, and may make it harder for readers to see which part of a sentence is supported by which ref. For "Mary loves cheese, and John loves soup," ideally the first ref after the sentence tells you about Mary and the second about John. But the point is that referencing isn't something a bot should change.
(And Bg, it really doesn't help when you arrive to answer questions for Magioladitis and defend whatever it is, because it means the problems don't get fixed, so it's always rinse and repeat.) Sarah (SV)(talk)00:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe adding a comment between the refs will prevent AWB from reordering the refs (and provides an opportunity to explain the reference order to future editors). GoingBatty (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
