User talk:Anybot

Special:RecentChanges

This bot is flooding recent changes. I suspect it has yet to be flagged as a bot account! -- Longhair\^talk 02:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this bot appears to be unattended and is flooding Special:RecentChanges at a rapid rate, I've blocked this account until the bot is flagged. -- Longhair\^talk 02:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked since receiving confirmation from the bot owner this bot will not operate until flagged. -- Longhair\^talk 02:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is now flagged and operational. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still seriously flooding Special:NewPages, not sure if that can be helped though; and I'm assuming it will run out of articles to create sooner rather than later at the rate it's going! ~ mazca ^t|c 15:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can click the "Hide bots" link to hide bot edits. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alaria

Incorporated information about User:Anybot/Alaria to Alaria. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, glad to hear it's being found useful! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've integrated a few too; in many cases the articles it's creating are substantial improvements on the existing ones. Nicely done. ~ mazca ^t|c 15:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for bot to be stopped and tweaked

Though this bot is very helpful, currently many of its pages are faulty. Bugs include incorrect redirects, incorrect number of species, and missing information. See the problems at User:Anybot/bugs. I am proposing that it be shut off until it is fine tuned. FingersOnRoids 18:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed this myself, so have paused the bot. Thanks for your diligence! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agh, sorry - somehow the bugs page wasn't on my watch list, or I'd've addressed this sooner. I'll work on those bugs now. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think it's an excellent bot, but just needs to get some bugs worked out. FingersOnRoids 18:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked Algaebase, I've noticed that several of the articles created by your bot were about genera whose species were not "currently accepted taxonomically". This might be the reason the species information in these articles are missing. What's your opinion of the deletion of these articles, because I find that articles on genera with no taxonomically accepted species in them of not much importance or notability. FingersOnRoids 20:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Campylomonas, Calyptrella and Campanoeca are a few examples of this. FingersOnRoids 20:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the classification is up in the air, then a redirect to the alternative home of the alga could be appropriate. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify, you are proposing that they could be redirected to where exactly? FingersOnRoids 21:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calyptrella's species' basionum is given as Rhizosolenia robusta, so Calyptrella could redirect to Rhizosolenia, as they are the same thing (if I've understood it correctly). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Calyptrella is the new name for Rhizosolenia, according to the definition of basionym, so I'm thinking a better idea would be to merge information from Rhizosolenia to Calyptrella, and also make it redirect to Calyptrella, because that is the newer name. What is your opinion on that? FingersOnRoids 22:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds even better! Perhaps you could put a little note in the new article once you've done the merge, to clarify the synonymy. A pity there's no easy way to automate this process... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New problem, some of the genera do not have any verified or accepted species, or are basionyms. I don't think a genus without any verifiable species is encyclopedic and passes WP:N, do you have any objection for me to WP:PROD them? FingersOnRoids 00:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving vs copying pages

Hi Martin(?)

For future reference, any problems if I move User:Anybot/Cotyledon to Cotyledon (alga) or should I just copy it? Moving preserves Anybot's creation.

Thanks. Saintrain (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving's probably the easiest way to go about it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! All done before I could get to it. Thanks. Saintrain (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bug

Agh! The bot has gone on a bit of a rampage and produced some unintended results - I accidentally knocked the safety catch off the synonymy handler. Consequently, many articles have been replaced with articles which appear to be about a different genus. I think that the genus name and authority is the only thing which needs changing in these articles; unfortunately, it's long gone bedtime, so fixes will have to wait until tomorrow. Please do be assured that I am addressing the problem! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

This bot has produced masses of articles with very serious taxonomical errors. I think the bot should not be used anymore. There is a huge work to fix those incorret articles. 213.214.136.54 (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't operated the bot since April. Subsequent use has been unauthorised and appears to have employed an outdated version of the bot; I am currently investigating and have blocked the bot until I deduce how this has happened. If there are systematic errors which can be fixed, I would be happy to write a script to correct them; I would need to be provided with logic to follow (e.g. 'change all occurrences of 'regnum=plantae' to 'regnum=chromalveoloata' in pages edited by anybot'). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Anybot's algae articles

I've listed Anybot's algae articles for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles. Thank you. Hesperian 00:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait before continuing to run this bot. A cyanobacterium is NOT a "genus of filamentous alga comprising one species," when there is no species number information in the article at AlgaeBase.

The one I checked has NO good species. The bot claims the premilinary species is a taxonomically good species. Your article says it's the only valid one.

What is going on?

Don't you have to have community consensus to run a bot? Did you get this elsewhere while we were debating this?

Rhodophyta as plants is archaic usage. Wikipedia uses eukaryote. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hi Martin,

I've reblocked Anybot. I understand that you were undoing your own block, but given the context I think it was highly inappropriate for you to have done so without consensus:

Discussion was proceeding on the understanding that the bot was blocked;
A number of people have recommended that the bot be blocked and/or de-approved;
A number of people had expressed opposition to the idea of you running a bot to fix the previous bot's errors;
I'm quite certain that you have not obtained BAG approval for this new bot to run
The BAG has been told that Anybot is blocked; there has been no attempt to tell the BAG that this is no longer the case;
According to 69.226.103.13 @ Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles, "You're introducing more and new errors and deleting stuff from the wrong place." Also see his/her comment immediately above this one.
As far as I am aware, the issue of someone having gained unauthorised access to the previous incarnation of the bot is not yet fully resolved.

Please do not unblock the bot again. If you want it unblocked, convince a BAG member to unblock it for you.

Hesperian 23:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Anybot's_algae_articles#AfD_notices. I'd welcome your feedback. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Martin, but it was way overdue: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Request for deflagging and blocking of Anybot. Hesperian 03:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair game. Having acted in haste, I'll repent at leisure...

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anybot's_algae_articles#Solution to keep all the discussion in one place. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tagging talk pages of articles it didn't create

Also, the bot created talk pages and tagged them as bot generated content when it only created a redirect to the article. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Articles/Capea

Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Articles/Capea, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Articles/Capea and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Articles/Capea during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]