<s>Hi. I think it would be nice to add support (unwatch buttons) for "Upload log" and "Deletion log" entries. --[[User:XXN|XXN]], 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)</s>
<s>Hi. I think it would be nice to add support (unwatch buttons) for "Upload log" and "Deletion log" entries. --[[User:XXN|XXN]], 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)</s>
:Oops, sorry. Your script already has this feature; my bad. For some wikis I have installed [[User:Anomie/unwatch.js]], for other - [[User:js/watchlist.js]], I frequently "jump" from one watchlist on some wiki to another, it got me confused and I posted here. --[[User:XXN|XXN]], 19:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
:Oops, sorry. Your script already has this feature; my bad. For some wikis I have installed [[User:Anomie/unwatch.js]], for other - [[User:js/watchlist.js]], I frequently "jump" from one watchlist on some wiki to another, it got me confused and I posted here. --[[User:XXN|XXN]], 19:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
== Protection level ==
Could you please change the protection level of {{tl|Edit a taxon}} to allow template editors to edit it? I am very experienced with editing the taxonomy templates; I spend quite a bit of my time looking after them. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 11:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
:{{tps}} {{done}} — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] ยท [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Revision as of 19:04, 5 February 2017
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.
OK I am confusing it with another template. Thanks. R.F.ย 2015-11-26Z15:58
AnomieBOT: Category:Use Pakistani English from November 2015 (etcetera)
Hi Anomie,
your bot creates every month a number of cleanup categories, including the "Use XXX English from" ones and the "Category:Use mdy dates from" and "Category:Use dmy dates from".
I have just changed all existing ones to use other templates, as these aren't cleanup categories like the other ones (they don't indicate problems with the articles, just things that may be checked for consistency: maintenance, not cleanup).
I hope this doesn't create too much extra work for you. Everything will still work if you don't change the bot, but if possible it would be nicer if you could do the following (examples given for next month):
This last one applies to American English, Australian English, British (Oxford) English, British English, Canadian English, Hong Kong English, Indian English, Irish English, Jamaican English, New Zealand English, Pakistani English, Scottish English, Singapore English, and South African English.
No problem, they are in the first of those. I'll keep an eye on them to see what happens in December, if it goes wrong I'll contact you again. Thanks! Fram (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see that e.g. Category:Use Pakistani English from December 2015 has been created, but not with the new template (as explained above) but with the old "monthly clean up category". This should, if possible, no longer be the case. Is there an easy way to solve this for the future? Or is it just that I was a bit too late with my request here? Fram (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying above. I'd rather not have a manually-updated list of categories that need arbitrary different text in the bot's code. Any suggestions on how to do this sensibly instead of me having to make and constantly update a big list or have weird pattern-matching going on? Anomieโ13:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
One idea would be a configuration template on the parent category page, not too different from templates like {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}}. The challenge there would be that the category pages aren't watched like talk pages that need archiving are, so it would be easier for someone to screw around with things unnoticed. Anomieโ13:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to think about this. it's no disaster if your bot continues to create these like it used to (it still works, just isn't optimal), so no need to change anything at the moment. If I think of a better solution, I'll drop a note. Fram (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Date by Omid Abtahi
Hi! You said:"Date for maintenance tags is the date the tag was added, not some other random date" -> tag means the template, not the text what marked? Fauvirt (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
In the National Herald Case, here the duplicate and unnecessary content has been added by the user "Rao_Ravindra" who is going in edit war, old content deleted without any proper reason. It seems that the media highlights of the case in India makes it bit sensitive. I and user "Capankajsmilyo" have been able to restore the content as much as possible but again the same issue. My request is that please look into the unnecessary edits going on ASAP and if possible add to it "semi-protected" sort of mode for a particular time to prevent it from vandalism.
Steel1943 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
I need help on the DisneyCarToys page, so I made this page about DisneyCarToys (a youtube channel) but I need your help or someone to improve this page. Here are links that can help
I created User:Anomie/ajaxpreview for you, mostly because it makes it easy for editors to get to their js page. Your instructions in the script should say common.js instead of monobook.js since not everyone uses the monobook skin. NE Ent16:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm unable to login via my bot. Bot is written in Perl. I've read the changes they made to authentication this month, but I'm confused. Was there anything you had to do to be able to handle the new login procedure? Bgwhite (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you using LWP::UserAgent's cookie handling, or something else? LWP::UserAgent works for AnomieBOT, but if you're using something else you might be having problems with properly handling the Set-Cookie headers. See phab:T124252 for more discussion on the kinds of cookie issues people have run into. Anomieโ20:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not. I'm only using MediaWiki::API and MediaWiki::Bot. Could I see where in your code you implement loggin in? Bgwhite (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I won't bore you with lame excuses for my propensity to use baroque homebrew tools in preference to well-supported standard ones, but I have to say it was initially rather spooky, and then quite serendipitously delightful, for you to have taken it upon yourself to tell me exactly what my baroque homebrew tool (that I wouldn't have expected you to even know the existence of, let alone be paying such close attention to) is doing wrong, before I myself had managed to roll up my sleeves to debug it at all! (So were you referring to me when you said "One bot had a different bug..."?) Thanks again! โSteve Summit (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No, it was someone else. As for how I found your bot, you linked to it, and then the bot's user page on Wiktionary described that it used that. Anomieโ01:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I have started to nominate some of the redirects for speedy deletion. Am I doing things right here? I've noticed that there aren't any other notifications for CSD nominations on his page, despite mine. I use Twinkle so all notices go straight to his talk page automatically, and it is quicker that way. Just making sure I'm not making any stupid mistakes. Best, --Ches(talk)19:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. I think I'm doing things correctly now because an admin has started to delete some of the redirects I nominated for speedy deletion. Regards, --Ches(talk)11:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Anomie. As of this writing AnomieBOT has made 775 null edits to the table of conflict-of-interest edit requests. This has messed up all the actual dates of the backlog; edit requests made back in September are now being marked as requested in February. I would appreciate it if you could fix this issue and rollback the page to the last good version. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The useless edits (not at all null edits, apparently) were because there were several entries with the same timestamp which it was putting in arbitrary order. That should be fixed now.
The lost timestamps are possibly a cause, not an effect. I'm not sure what exactly was making it fail there, but I think I have that fixed too. Unfortunately, the only way to restore the old timestamps would be manually looking up the correct timestamps and then manually editing the bot's database. Chances are it would be more efficient to just take action on the requests. Anomieโ01:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
They're not null edits, because null edits change nothing and leave no trail in the page history or user contributions. They do force reparsing of all transcluded components, remaking of the link table entries and update the categories. See for example the contributions of the highly prolific Joe'sย Nullย Botย (talkย ยทcontribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't sure what to call them. Perhaps just 0-byte edits would have been clearer; in any case the issue (except for the time stamps) has now been fixed. Altamel (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Neelix list
Anomie, I'm sure you're busy, but it could help things if you could have your bot do some maintenance work on the Neelix lists. In particular, any page that is a red link, any page listed at RfD and any page recently retargeted by not-Neelix could be bot-removed so us humans don't have to manage. Let me know if this is something you'd be able to do. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Anomie. I am currently trying to colour links of articles within the Living people category. How exactly can I do this? I tried .living-people as with .spoken-articles, but it did not work. Help, please. Many thanks. Neve-selbert06:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
.spoken-articles works? I wonder why I did that.
Try adding LinkClassifier.cats['living-people'] = [ 'Category:Living people' ].sort(); to your common.js, after the line that includes linkclassifier.js. That should make your CSS rule work when you put it back. Anomieโ12:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It could be done by adding the category into the module itself, but I'd rather not bloat it with every category someone somewhere wants. The better solution is to figure out how to make it individually configurable. Anomieโ22:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, Anomie. I was just wondering whether or not it would be possible to colourise links that direct to broken section anchors. For example, List of rulers of the Pitcairn Islands#Local Heads of Government (since 1790) is a link to an existent article but a non-existent section (and clicking on such a link would only link you to the article, and no specific section in particular), as the section is properly titled as: Local Heads of Government (1790โpresent), so I would like internal links such as the one aforementioned to be coloured differently in order for me to quickly identify and subsequently mend them. I am on a mission to fix the broken section anchors (found here and here) I come into conflict with, and I believe that colourising them would greatly help me in succeeding in doing so. Many thanks.--Neveโselbert00:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Maybe I could ask for a favor? Could you take a look at this? I assume, it will be pretty easy for you. Didn't found anything on Internet, that could help me in this case (giving destination URL for many links, not for just one). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 00:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Sonnet template help
Hi. I've been playing around with a template, and am stuck. Would you be so kind as to take a look? The (provisional) template is {{Sonnet/sandbox}} and my test instance of its use is User:Phil_wink/Sonnet_Uniformity_Act#Synopsis. The bug is around the parameter "S" (for "source"), which you'll find at the very bottom of the template, and which is responsible for housing the citation within the inline reference. The template works perfectly on its own page (e.g. the default citation appears in the reflist). However, when transcluded, it displays the default even when "S" is given a new value. I'm assuming this is because the value I'm trying to assign to "S" is itself a template ({{cite web}}), but I haven't found how to do this properly. Any advice? I don't know if it makes a difference, but when this bug is resolved, I'm inclined to put the whole <ref>...</ref> bit inside an #ifexpr: statement to completely remove it if it's not supplied. Thanks for your attention. Phil wink (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I'm the current chair over at MEDCOM and I rejected Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vladimir Putin this morning. The bot removed the rejection template and adjusted the category, but didn't remove the case from the pending case list or notify the parties of the rejection. Could you figure out what happened and fix the pending case list? I'm afraid to do that for fear of breaking the bot even worse. I'm going to go ahead and notify the parties manually. I have a request in to the committee members who are admins (I'm not an admin) to delete that page to preserve the privilege of mediation and it might disappear before you have the chance to see it, so all I'm really looking for is a fix of the pending case page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Update 2: Everything seems to be fixed. If you did that, thanks; if I was simply too impatient, sorry about the bother. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't do anything. The slight delay in notification was probably due to some database lag around that time that I see noted in the bot's logs. I don't know why there was a longer delay before it was removed from the pending case list, unless MediaWiki was a little slow about updating the category links table for some reason. Anomieโ02:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
At some point I wrote some code that makes identicons, and then I ran some input (I forget what) through that program. Anomieโ22:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
if it's not too much, may I ask for the software and/or the code? because that looks seriously gorgeous, especially with the gradient and stuff, and it's an SVG (resize to infinity).
Taking a quick look at the code, it appears that the rate limit for moves is based on submissions of the form, regardless of how many subpages one submission might wind up actually moving.
As for the ping, yeah. this was obviously the wrong name, then Echo doesn't pay attention to corrections like this (I believe it wants you to add a whole new comment with a new signature). Anomieโ14:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so not needed for move-subpages. Would the rate limit potentially affect someone who was trying to fulfill a bunch of individual move requests? (e.g. clearing a backlog over a 10-15 minute period) โxenotalk14:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Potentially. The current rate limit is set at 8 moves every 60 seconds for most users (2 every 120 seconds for "newbies", but I doubt the users under consideration here would be likely to meet whatever definition of "newbie" that uses), though, which would be some pretty fast backlog-clearing. Anomieโ16:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Might be needed in some less-common cases where someone is asking for a bunch of pages to be moved and the pagemover is using extra tabs and the like to prepare a big set. Okay, thanks for your help! โxenotalk16:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you saw the WP:VPT discussion in section "Deletion timeout on File:To Commons.svg" and/or the related Phabricator task. I've deleted the file as a technical matter (three times, over a period of hours, did I try to undelete it, but the system consistently threw a fit and refused), and the bot closed the file's WP:PUF discussion. Since my action wasn't related to the discussion, I've reverted the bot (it needs a close from someone who's assessing consensus from the discussion), but I'm left wondering: will the bot revert me? If so, is there any way to tell it not to re-close the discussion? Nyttend (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The bot will close the discussion if it sees that the file does not exist locally, which currently seems to be the case. Anomieโ01:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way for average users to instruct the bot not to close a specific discussion? Perhaps some specialised use of {{nobots}}? Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Not really. For PUF you could change the header of the section so the bot doesn't recognize it (i.e. remove the link to the file in question). Anomieโ01:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Anomie. It looks like, over the past day, AnomieBOT has created hundreds of new category redirects, one example being here. The problem is that the bot is using hard redirects (#REDIRECT), which are not used in the Category namespace. Instead, you need to have it create soft redirects using the {{Category redirect}} template. The huge number of incorrect redirects your bot created is slowing down my bot, which patrols category redirects. Thanks for your attention to this issue. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
If you want to create proper category redirects, I don't have any problem with that; it's only the hard redirects that are the concern. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
AnomieBOT & PRODs
I'm running into some odd cases caused by AnomieBOT. It is tagging non-English pages with {{Not English}} which is not a big deal except for they contain timestamps. After a certain date, they turn into expired PRODS. The problem is that it is tagging User pages and Draft pages and PRODs should only be placed on Articles. Is there a remedy for this? LizRead!Talk!17:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
No. If I had to I could probably throw something together, but I can't say I'm really interested in doing so. Anomieโ22:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
sorry about that
Sorry to get you and User:The Anomie confused, I don't think I did but I do say "The Anomie list" and things like that. If I got the two of you confused I can only apologise. I can't actually see that I have but obviously you could so I probably did somewhere. "Neelix redirects" get you like that that after a while you can't tell X from Z that is purely my fault and sorry to both if I did. Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, there is not a User:The Anomie so I have not got anyone confused but I like to get my apologies in first these days! Did I somewhere call you by that nick? When I say "The Anomie list" I am of course referring to the list not to you personally, it's the "public" list that AnomieBot made well you made it but the bot technically made it. If I've somehow blundered into not making that clear, with a capital letter or something, I can only apologise. Am I just cocking up on spelling? After a while with these Neelix redirects they do tend to get you that way. Si Trew (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
There's a user The Anome (note the "The" and the lack of a letter "i"). It's easy to confuse us if you're only acquainted with one of us and you're not paying close attention.
Hi Anomie, any updates on this request? And about template-protection, I don't mean to come off as pushy or anything. If I should have interpreted your silence as "no", let me know, and I won't ping about this further. Thanks. โโฏAndyย W.ย (talkโฏยทโฏctb)00:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Anomie, my apologies for making a bad assumption related to Special:Diff/724866523. I'm not too concerned with how you want to manage your bot parameters - it is your bot so it is up to you. I think you do a good job in running your bot tasks, and they are a net positive to the entire community. I do try to tend to Category:Wikipedia fully-protected edit requests regularly, and this was sitting open, essentially asking patrolling administrators to deal with it. The template directions are clear that it should not be active if consensus to support the change is still under discussion. โ xaosfluxTalk01:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Rejecting the request to remove {{Scite}} with the justification given there was completely inappropriate, IMO, which is why I reverted. When a bot is able to be controlled by taking action on-wiki, IMO that means that the operator wants help from the community in managing the day-to-day operations of the bot in that respect. If the operator did not want anyone else adjusting it, they should put the configuration off-wiki (or have the bot stop if the most recent revision isn't from the operator's account, or something like that). The operator is still responsible for ensuring that vandals can't make the bot be a nuisance, hence in this case the protection of the configuration page to restrict it to users who should be able to be trusted to not misconfigure it.
Rejecting the request to close the VPT discussion was not inappropriate, although it could have been done with a better justification (i.e. "that's not something appropriate for {{edit protected}}").
Anyway, since it has been a week at VPT and no one objected, I did go ahead and change the protection level. Anomieโ13:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
archive.is has been blacklisted for years, due to issues with people running unauthorized bots to spam links to the site all over Wikipedia. The mirror at archive.li was added to the blacklist last month. There's currently an RfC discussing unblocking it. Anomieโ13:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Perpetuating vandalism
Anomie: Do you have any idea who was editing as 185.127.244.160? Someone was socking as 185.127.244.160 and IMO vandalizing that page and several others where you've followed up on that IPs edits. You followed up on their edits by removing orphaned links from numerous pages. I wonder what their motivation was, and yours. Can you please explain? Do you actually buy this "archive.is is not reliable" nonsense? Your treatment of these dead links is highly inappropriate. "Remove blacklisted orphaned ref" is not an accurate representation of your edit, IMO. What you did was remove an orphan of a complete citation that happened to use a blacklisted reference, but doing so is not in alignment with editor norms, because the citation would be enough to make the content verifiable even without the blacklisted URL within the citation. As User:Rebbing has already noted elsewhere, and I concur: It's considered bad form to remove dead links from articles without at least making a minimal effort to find a replacement. (Have a look at WP:LINKROT.) Doing it as a drive-by is pretty close to vandalism. Even if archive.is hadn't been removed from the blacklist, which it since has been, it's unconstructive, I think. At minimum, you ought to leave the original dead link so others can make an effort to replace it. Thanks. (Rebbing's note, revised by me.) You understand that archive.is et. al. has been removed from the blacklist? --Elvey(tโขc)02:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't know who was using that IP, and I don't care. My motivation was "This reference cannot be re-added to the article due to the blacklist, so I'm going to remove it instead of leaving a big red error in the article". If archive.is has been removed from the blacklist, then AnomieBOT and I won't be unable to re-add the reference so it won't come up. Anomieโ13:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
archive.is has been blacklisted for years, due to issues with people running unauthorized bots to spam links to the site all over Wikipedia. The mirror at archive.li was added to the blacklist last month. There's currently an RfC discussing unblocking it. Anomieโ13:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Perpetuating vandalism
Anomie: Do you have any idea who was editing as 185.127.244.160? Someone was socking as 185.127.244.160 and IMO vandalizing that page and several others where you've followed up on that IPs edits. You followed up on their edits by removing orphaned links from numerous pages. I wonder what their motivation was, and yours. Can you please explain? Do you actually buy this "archive.is is not reliable" nonsense? Your treatment of these dead links is highly inappropriate. "Remove blacklisted orphaned ref" is not an accurate representation of your edit, IMO. What you did was remove an orphan of a complete citation that happened to use a blacklisted reference, but doing so is not in alignment with editor norms, because the citation would be enough to make the content verifiable even without the blacklisted URL within the citation. As User:Rebbing has already noted elsewhere, and I concur: It's considered bad form to remove dead links from articles without at least making a minimal effort to find a replacement. (Have a look at WP:LINKROT.) Doing it as a drive-by is pretty close to vandalism. Even if archive.is hadn't been removed from the blacklist, which it since has been, it's unconstructive, I think. At minimum, you ought to leave the original dead link so others can make an effort to replace it. Thanks. (Rebbing's note, revised by me.) You understand that archive.is et. al. has been removed from the blacklist? --Elvey(tโขc)02:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't know who was using that IP, and I don't care. My motivation was "This reference cannot be re-added to the article due to the blacklist, so I'm going to remove it instead of leaving a big red error in the article". If archive.is has been removed from the blacklist, then AnomieBOT and I won't be unable to re-add the reference so it won't come up. Anomieโ13:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
API Question
Hi Anomie, I had a question about the API. Is it possible to use the API to fetch the username of the first editor to a page, for multiple pages with one query? I'm currently using the revisions module to get the username of a page creator, but that only lets me set one titles= param at a time. Thanks, FASTILY02:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not possible. We can easily fetch the latest revision for multiple pages because each row in the page table points to it via page_latest, but there's no such pointer for the earliest revision. Anomieโ11:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I recently found a clever solution of yours for creating a hanging indent: style="margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in" and I tried to apply it to a template I recently created ({{Verse translation/sandbox}}). However, the result isn't right:
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Translation 1
Translation 2
Translation 3
What I'm after is that this hanging indent would be applied individually to each line, not to the whole block as a single paragraph. Thus, the effect should seldom be seen at all โ only if the lines were very long, or the screen very narrow. (My underlying implementation is {{#tag:poem|{{{1}}}|style="font-style:italic;margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in"}} so that single uncoded line breaks are maintained in the display. I.e. I want to keep the texts intact and avoid markup like : at the beginning of a line or <br /> at the end.) This is just a nice-to-have, not a necessity, but any advice? Thanks much. Phil wink (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Bot down?
Wanting to nominate a file for deletion, I just now found myself creating Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 5, because AnomieBOT hadn't done so. It appears to be creating FFD pages at 23:01 on the previous day, but I can't identify why it didn't create the 5 August page at 23:01 on 4 August. Could you look into it? Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what might be going on. I'll try stopping and restarting the bot and see if that fixes things. Anomieโ13:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I had a bug in my OAuth code: it was passing a floating-point value rather than an integer for the oauth_timestamp parameter, and gerrit:221863 had a side effect that the different backend on WMF wikis chokes if given a non-integer. Bot updated and seems to be running correctly now. Sorry for the delay in fixing it, I was without Internet access since Friday. Anomieโ19:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Anomie, I would like to have your script work at commons, I think I've asked you this before but, I'm unable to see or remember how to link back to the script here or add the script to my common.css / common.js there. Sorry to be a bother. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel)16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe it should work with something like mw.loader.load( 'https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );. Anomieโ01:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Please take a moment to review and update your status at the membership page. If you have been semi-inactive, we would love to have you back in action!
If you have not already, you may want to consider adding Wikipedia:BAG/Status to your watchlist, it is a bot generated list of all in progress requests.
It seems that AnomieBOT is down here; the table hasn't been updated for a few hours. (Though it may be fixed by the time you read this). Just thought I'd let you know, thanks! MeowMoon (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like Labs maintenance may have accidentally killed the bot task. I recently set things up to automatically restart it daily when such things happen, which seems to have worked in this instance. Anomieโ13:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Hello, Anomie. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! ๐
Your AnomieBOT just visited my sandbox. It is great! Thank you! Wanted to do this work next week an now it already is done. Wonderful. --Andrea014 (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The only change would be the text of the template returned by the makeUnsignedTemplate function, and the word "unsigned" in a few places to match. Personally, I so seldom see undated rather than completely unsigned that I would just use the existing script and then update the resulting template manually. Anomieโ10:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Question about the autosubst
Normally an editor can't subst a template found inside <ref>...</ref> tags, but I don't recall AnomieBOT having that issue. Is there a workaround it uses, or does it just not subst stuff in ref tags? Primefac (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
AnomieBOT doesn't subst by just adding "subst:" into the wikitext. It extracts the template invocation (which is generally smart enough to avoid <nowiki> and the like), adds subst: and |subst=subst:, passes it through action=parse with onlypst, replaces its own username and signature with the username and signature of the user who added the exact text of the template invocation (which unfortunately catches minor formatting edits and vandal reversions, but it usually works right for the few templates that include signatures), then injects the resulting wikitext back into the article in place of the original invocation. Anomieโ13:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Could you please change the protection level of {{Edit a taxon}} to allow template editors to edit it? I am very experienced with editing the taxonomy templates; I spend quite a bit of my time looking after them. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Fauvirt (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Current events pages. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
.gif)
INVISIBLEknock! 09:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Template:2014 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pppery (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
ย Done โย Martin (MSGJย ยทย talk) 12:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)