User talk:AMbot

Creating bot

I acknowledge that I am creating this bot account. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused.

I'm newish to wikipedia, so some stuff that's obvious to people that have been around for a while is, to me, quite confusing.

Example:
On the history page of User:AndreaPersephone, there's a line:

11:04, 13 June 2007 AMbot (Talk | contribs) m (8,500 bytes) (remove categorization per CSD and DRV)

(So CSD is Criteria for speedy deletion, and DRV is Deletion Review. OK. So far, so good.) But:

Nothing has been posted on the user's talk page.
There's no reference anywhere to which of the CSD applies.
There's no reference anywhere to the deletion review.

So what's going on? And why? I'm completely confused. Pdfpdf 12:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to explain as best I can, and if I miss any points, please let me know and I'll try to refocus as needed. You are obviously referring to this edit, where Category:Pro-Choice Wikipedians was removed. If you look in the deletion log you will see that the category was deleted using the speedy deletion criteria. Some persons objected to its deletion, which was then discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 4 in the section titled "Category:Wikipedians by political issue and its subcategories". The deletion of the categories was endorsed at the deletion review, which means that there is consensus for the category to no longer exist. The bot isn't making any judgments about the category or its deletion, it is just doing the clean up to remove pages from the category, since there is no point in having a page be a member of a category which doesn't exist. I hope that clears up your confusion, but please let me know if it doesn't and I'll try again. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Your explanation is remarkably clear and comprehensive. Unfortunately, there are a few steps I don't quite follow and probably need you to fill in some detail for me. I'm afraid I need to get to bed now; I'll get back to you in the next couple of days. Many thanks for such a clear explanation. Pdfpdf 13:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome and thank you for the compliment. Feel free to come back here and continue this thread anytime. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You goofed

You goofed: [1]. The tag read <includeonly></noinclude>, which is wrong. I had to fix it. The Evil Spartan 18:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did goof, and it was actually even worse than what you noticed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have corrected it further and will see that the bot is fixed to not do this again. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

Removed catagory

The category has been deleted but the link doesn't point to the debate just the general page, which no longer includes it, more an irritation, as I now have to hunt it down in the histories, than a big thing. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 07:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions get archived, so the links often change after the bot does its task. Looking at the history of your userpage, I think that you are looking for this discussion, Wikipedia:User_categories for discussion/Archive/June 2007#Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians, but if I have the wrong one, and you still need help, let me know. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little error

In this edit. when removing a category, the bot also moved the table code up a line, causing it to not function. Don't know how common a problem this will be, but I figured you'd like to know about it.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll take a look into that. I'm sorry that you had to fix it. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem on my Userbox page because it moved |} up a line, screwing with the pages formatting.→Lzy Genius 21:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyingly, this is still happening! If you want some help looking at the code, email me (I've enabled it) --Silas Snider (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of age categories

Your bot is removing age categories, but pointing to a CFD day that shows no age-category CFDs. I assume you just have the wrong day in the edit summary, can you fix this? Grand master ka 06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the date is wrong. Have a look at WP:UCFD (soon to be moved to the archive). — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 13:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, Cbuckley. I did make the error in the edit summary but the discussion is where you have noted. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bug

In this edit, the edit summary points to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/August 2007#September 5 rather than Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/September 2007#September 5. Anomie 14:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not a bug, just a bad copy/paste by the bot operator. Sorry, I do that sometimes. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey you hosed my user page. 1) why? 2) if you're gonna do it, do it well

hey you hosed my user page. first off, I'm not sure you should do that. No rule against it mayhaps, but it's quite RUDE. Secondly (and I guess you're some sort of deletionist zealot working on categories) if you're gonna go off on some deltionist crusade, at least do a COMPETENT job of it. Feel free to fix my page. In fact, screw it, I'll just revert. Cheers, --Ling.Nut 04:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know.... It was a bot that did this and which you are replying to. I try to ensure that all of the bot's edits are correct, but it does make a small number or errors on occasion, especially when it is confused by intricate syntax. I apologize for any difficulty that this may have caused you. As a side note, insulting either I or the bot for executing decisions which have been made by consensus, as noted in the edit summaries which were provided, is not particularly helpful, and probably more rude than making an innocent error to your user page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again

I'm asking you to keep your bot off of my page. Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is performing an authorized task, you may choose to opt out at any time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I opt out? I don't mind it doing what it does, but when I revert its edit to my page, I expect it to stay that way.. not the bot come back and do the same thing again as was the previous case. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with it reverting you was just because I was still clearing the category when you reverted it. I usually run it a few times for each category because of the complexity of the templates that populate all of them. In other words, this won't happen again as long as you always wait a full day or so before you restore the category. If that still doesn't work for you, we could set you up for a permanent opt-out, but that might cause you to miss some other edits that the bot might do that you would like. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snafu

See the history of my user page. The bot, removing a category from a substed template, moved a "|}" back before a line break, which messed everything up. You should probably try to avoid that problem. Mango juice^talk 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I caught many of them, but still missed a few. Sorry for the inconvenience. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikilink in edit summary

I think that most of your bot's recent edit summaries are linking to the wrong place. For example, the edit summary of this edit goes to the November 2007 WPUCFD archive when it should go to the December 2007 archive. --Mathew5000 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. You are right. I hate when that happens. I'll fix it now. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that debate please? I couldn't find it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it now - it isn't yet in the archive but still listed as live (even tho' it's been closed. DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't archived until everything for that day is closed. I just closed the other debate on that day so that I could archive all of these. In case anyone else comes here looking, they are now at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/December 2007#December 11. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

The edit summary in this series of edits is broken. [2] — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please see the above thread. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more concerned about the broken AWB link - did you hit the signature maximum length? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, must have. I'll talk to the AWB devs about that to see if they can do anything. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:AOTR

This category has not been correctly restored yet... I could 120 some admins now back in it but it had 136 or 137 before. You should make absolutely sure that everything is completely restored as it was before you started. Thanks! Your efforts are appreciated, and undoing a bad change completely will be really appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow... I'm getting to it. What do you mean "yet"? How fast do you expect me to be? Please just give me a few moments and it will be done. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category moved, not deleted

Hi, in [3] your bot removed a category from my user page, but the category was renamed, not deleted [4], so it would have been better to add all members of the old category to the new one. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]