User talk:BattyBot/Archive2

Dead End v. Underlinked, mark 2

In this edit you removed "Dead end" and replaced it by "Underlinked". But it has exactly zero links. PamD 13:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi PamD! There's one link in the {{prod-2}} template, but that shouldn't count towards removing the {{dead end}} template. Need to do more research on this before running this bot task again. Thanks for letting me know! GoingBatty (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again - I've submitted an AWB bug report for this issue. Thanks again! GoingBatty (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

essay-like tag is expanding the scope of the statement

This bot is expanding Essay-like into a statement I cannot agree with on Scientific method. If this is the result it makes the tag 'heavier' than the talk page, as the talk page shows the discussion was initiated by a single phrase. If this is what is going to happen following the use of that tag I intend to return the article to its previous state. __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a comparison of what the {{essay-like}} statement was before and after the bot's edit:

Before BattyBot added {{multiple issues}}	After BattyBot added {{multiple issues}}
"This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style."	"This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject."

You can see that BattyBot did not expand the statement. Instead, it reduced it by combining the three templates inside the {{Multiple issues}} template, which is the whole point of the bot task. Please let me know if I've misunderstood your concern. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Your edit is not an appropriate usage for the {{Multiple issues}} template. It's fine that you are contesting the {{Refimprove}}, {{POV}}, and {{essay-like}} templates, but please remove the {{Multiple issues}} template if you're removing the others. My bot's edit did not add the templates. You may want to follow up with User:Quarkgluonsoup on their edit. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

FYI. Added references and updated the semitool article a bit ~ Oct. Octavius SV 21:20, 6 Mar. 2013 (UTC)

Good job! In the future, please edit this page only if you want to stop BattyBot. For comments and questions about its actions (or your edits), please use User talk:GoingBatty. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Issues Conversion

Hi, just wondered why in this edit the first entry was not converted like the rest and per template documentation? Keith D (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this issue! When I coded the bot task, I included all the parameters in the old template documentation. |morefootnotes= is not a valid parameter, so it doesn't display any text in older versions of the article. I've fixed my bot task to fix both |morefootnotes= and |nofootnotes=, and successfully re-edited the Rotherham article. I'll go looking for more articles with these incorrect parameters and fix them. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Point-of-Rental Systems

You placed an orphan tag on the Point-of-Rental Systems page. If you scroll below to categories, 2 other articles are listed that have links to this article. Does that not count?

"It is recommended to only place the orphan tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles." - This article has 2. Please explain your tag? NASA1983 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Knowing what I know, I'm going to assume it was added by him using AWB which tags as an {{orphan}} by default if there are less than 3 incoming links with the "Tagger" set of general fixes per WP:Orphan#Criteria that says, "Although a single, relevant incoming link is sufficient to remove the tag, three or more is ideal and will help ensure the article is reachable by readers.". Technical 13 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi NASA1983! You are correct - categories do not count as articles. When this edit was made on April 28, there were no articles that linked to Point-of-Rental Systems, so AWB properly tagged the article as an orphan. Earlier today, you added a link from Rental management software in this edit, so you can now remove the {{orphan}} (and {{multiple issues}}) tags from Point-of-Rental Systems.

When you're on the Point-of-Rental Systems article, you can click the "What links here" link in the Toolbox in the lefthand menu to go to Special:WhatLinksHere/Point-of-Rental Systems, which shows everything that links to the article. You can then filter the results to show only articles.

Based on your username and your edit history, I'm guessing you're somehow related to this company. If you haven't done so already, you may be interested in reading Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability|music

Something triggered Batty to think Lifeboat Foundation was a music article (here); a coding error or a reminder to include more music articles in general? L.tak (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops - I should have tagged that as {{notability|organization}} - I'll fix them up now. Thanks for letting me know! GoingBatty (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed - thanks again! GoingBatty (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

removal of curly parameter issue

This edit on the Paxos (computer science) from 18 June 2013 introduced four errors into the HTML source that caused some references not to function. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: - Thanks for letting me know. I already discovered that some of the |curly= parameters contained a "yes" instead of a "y", and I apologies that I didn't catch that that I left a mess on that page. I also didn't know that my bot was skipping some entirely, so I'm running it again more cautiously. Thanks again! GoingBatty (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The bot made most references in Leslie Lamport and maybe more articles unusable. Will you fix them by re-running the (modified) bot, or should they be fixed manually? --Stefan Weil (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll manually fix the few instances of {{cite bookes}}, {{cite journeles}}, {{cite webes}}, etc. BattyBot (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done - I fixed four articles manually, each of which had to do with Lamport. Please let me know if you discoverer any other issues. Thanks! BattyBot (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

classicfilmbuff use talk p.

What you found was a copy of the article on the 1933 film Queen Christina. I think it's there because I was trying to make a correction but couldn't delete a reference without an error notice. Why did you put a bot on my page rather than the article p? For that matter, why'd you put a bot on my user page at all? Just trying to understand.Thanks--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@Classicfilmbuff: - Per WP:USERNOCAT, "user subpages that are draft versions of articles should be kept out of content categories ... If you copy an article from mainspace to userspace and it already contains categories, remove them or comment them out. Restore the categories when you move the draft back into article space." One of my bot's tasks is to comment out article catgeories from user pages such as yours. If you would like help removing a reference, I'd be happy to try to help if you'll post the details on User talk:GoingBatty. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Artificial neural network

Your bot is removing hidden comments and adding a class that we do not even support.

The Robotics project does not use C class. Your bot not only changed it to C class, after I had recently put it back to start, but it also moved the hidden comment.

[1] Please expain why it did this? Chaosdruid (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid: - BattyBot neither removes hidden comments nor adds any classes. Please note that in the edit you cited, BattyBot did NOT change the class - it was changed by Qwertyus in this edit from August after you had changed it to B class in February. The documentation for Template:WikiProjectBannerShell does not indicate that it is appropriate to include comments within the template. If you gain consensus for this and update the documentation, I'll be happy to bring this up with the AWB developers. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Doh! Sorry about that, I blame my eyesight.

Thanks for the info on the hidden comments, I will try and remove them from places I put them, and try to remember to put them below in future :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Self-reverted and apologised to bot in summary :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello BattyBoy,

I’m the person in charge of Krug Wikipedia project. I saw that you contribute with Champagne. Krug wants to publish the article we post on Champagne Krug talk page seven months ago. And which was well-validated by the community.

I put the article in the link below: [[2]]

I would like to know if you can publish it. I'm not able to do it myself because I was involved in a sockpuppery investigation due to the fact that I work in an agency where several persons work in the same project. So we share the same IP address. Please tell me if you can update this information.

Thank you very much and have a good day.

Tristan.sbry (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@Tristan.sbry: - My bot does not have permission to do such a task. I commend you for acting in good faith by declaring your conflict of interest and not directly editing the article. I see you have posted a suggested rewrite of the article at Talk:Champagne Krug#Collaborative project with The House of Krug, but I don't see that it "was well-validated by the community". Per Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest#Don't edit articles, I added two instances of the {{request edit}} template to the talk page, in the hopes that editors who are knowledgeable in this field will come to assist you. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

BETEGY

Hi BattyBot,

You recently orphaned an article, and would like to know what steps have to be taken to de-orphan it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larochie (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) BattyBot does not orphan articles, but it does add the {{orphan}} tag to articles that are already orphans, which is what it did here, because there are no links from other articles to Betegy. The way to fix this is to ensure that there are suitable links from other pages to Betegy; there is more information at WP:O and WP:BUILD. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new task: Fixing articles in Category:Pages with ISBN errors

There are many pages in Category:Pages with ISBN errors that have ISBN parameters that look like "isbn=0123456789, 9780123456789". A bot task could check the second ISBN for validity and remove the first ISBN if the second one is valid.

A bot might also be able to use some regexes from my AutoEd ISSN-fixing script to fix invalid ISSNs and ISBNs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: - For your first suggestion, I don't think a bot would be able to tell whether to remove the first or second ISBN. Your script looks interesting, but that's something for another day. GoingBatty (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The bot should remove the first (10-digit) ISBN and keep the second (13-digit) ISBN, per the help text at Category:Pages with ISBN errors. I don't know the origin of that instruction, but the industry is transitioning from 10-digit to 13-digit ISBNs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

An ISBN-13 is identical to the number encoded in the product barcode. Moreover, the supply of unused ISBN-10 is rapidly becoming exhausted; ISBN-13 can accommodate future expansion more easily. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for task 22

Some suggestions on parameters to add to task 22

Bot-fixable parameters

• |translator – Fix by changing |translator to |others and adding "Translated by" in front of the translator's name or ", translator" after the translator's name.
• |pagees – Change parameter name to |pages.
• |auther – Change parameter name to |author.
• |middle – Middle name is intended. Copy contents of |middle and paste after the contents of |first, with a space after the contents of |first. Remove the |middle parameter entirely.
• |quotes = yes – Remove. This is not a supported parameter. Someone was trying to make the citation do something that it doesn't do. This appears almost exclusively in cite journal templates, for some reason. (It is a valid parameter in {{Infobox Doctor Who episode}}, so don't just go stripping it from every article, please Mr. Bot.)
• |other – Replace with |others.
• Correct all or most common misspellings listed at Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions.

Possibly-bot-fixable parameters

• Lots of one-time misspellings and other typos that are not common enough to put in the list of common misspellings, e.g. |volumbe (volume), |firstn (first1, first2, etc.), |first[1] (first1, first2, etc.), |editorn-first (editor1-first, etc.).
• |editorial – This is the Spanish word for "publisher". If it makes sense, change the parameter name to |publisher.
• (a bunch of stuff that looks like the all or part of a web address) – This happens when there is a "|" in the |url parameter followed by an "=". To fix, replace each "|" in the URL with "%7c". Check the url to see if it is valid. You may also need to add "url=" in front of the "http://" part of the URL.
• |note – This is not a valid parameter. Notes can be removed and pasted between the closing }} and the closing </ref>, though this is not ideal.

Not bot-fixable

• |unused_data – This common parameter was added by a bot that cleaned up "unnamed parameters" before these CS1 errors existed. You have to look at the data to determine if it should be removed or if a parameter name should be added to it.

Those are the common unsupported parameters I have seen.

Another {{cite web}} error that happens a lot is {{cite web|http://www.example.com/foo/bar.html}}. This citation will show up in Category:Pages with citations using unnamed parameters if there are other valid parameters or Category:Pages with empty citations if there are no other valid parameters. If this bot task could add |url= before the http, that would be great. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: - Some of these are included in (or could be added to) Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Rename template parameters, while others are good ideas to test and add to the bot. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: - I just reread Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 22, and I see I was very specific that this bot would remove invalid parameters. So I'll remove |quotes=yes, but the rest is outside the bot's approval. GoingBatty (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

hey i saw you have edited "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahira_College_Matale" this page recently.. please add a logo to this page.. i cant do it cz my profile is not approved yet.. use this image or any other good image you can find.. thanks :)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zcm_logo_(2).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aishak 97 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@Aishak 97:  Done. The link was already in the infobox - I just had to fix it. Next time, please use this request only when you want to stop BattyBot, and put requests like this at User talk:GoingBatty. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Date changing

Why is the bot changing within citation templates dates in the mm/dd/yyyy format to the yyyy/mm/dd or such? Is the former not correct? speednat (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@Speednat: The mm/dd/yyyy format is not correct. The bot's edit summary contains a link to Category:CS1 errors: dates, which states "This is a tracking category for CS1 citations with date-holding parameters where the date values do not comply with MOS:DATEFORMAT." On MOS:DATEFORMAT, scroll down to Unacceptable date formats and you'll see it states "Do not use year-final numerical date formats (DD/MM/YYYY or MM/DD/YYYY), as they are ambiguous: "03/04/2005" could refer to 3 April or to March 4." GoingBatty (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. However MOS:DATEUNIFY states "Access and archive dates in references should all have the same format – either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD." In this edit,[3] the bot converted MM/DD/YYYY to YYYY-MM-DD where all the other access dates in the article use MMMM D, YYYY. --  Gadget850 ^talk 12:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that references 5 and 27 (which BattyBot combined) used DD MMMM YYYY for the accessdates, so the article didn't meet MOS:DATEUNIFY before BattyBot came by. I've unified the dates and made other fixes to the references. GoingBatty (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked this bot for making controversial changes to references without consensus, such as removing author=Staff. Please seek consensus before making such widespread changes. --Rschen7754 01:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: - Please see this discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Procedure when author is .22Staff.22, which refers to the instructions added to Help:Citation Style 1#Authors in this edit from 2011. I'll stop running that task in case you'd like to discuss this further. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That was discussion between 3 people, hardly any consensus. Also, can you please revert the bot's edits? --Rschen7754 01:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It was three people discussing two-year-old instructions. I will be happy to revert the bots edits if there is consensus to do so. GoingBatty (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you for stopping (and not blocking) the bot. This allows the bot to run unrelated tasks while I wait for consensus on the issue you have brought up. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that removing "Staff" was mentioned in the bot approval discussion. GoingBatty (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That is great, but BAG cannot determine that there is consensus to change the reference formats on hundreds of articles. WP:BOLD does not apply to bots. --Rschen7754 01:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Earlier today, I wrote that WP:BOLD does not apply to bots at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 58#Request for text removal. In this case, I didn't think using an approved bot to following procedure was bold. I look forward to your comments at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Procedure when author is .22Staff.22. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Oh, you really did block the bot! Sorry I presumed otherwise - I haven't been blocked before, and wrongly presumed there would be some official-looking notice here. I'm disappointed that you didn't just stop the bot and give me the benefit of the doubt that I would stop that task based on your concern. GoingBatty (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

{{unblock | reason=I would like to run other unrelated tasks while this issue is being discussed. [[User:GoingBatty|GoingBatty]] ([[User talk:GoingBatty|talk]]) 02:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)}}

I can't edit the template on my phone but this was done. That being said, I am concerned about your interpretation of consensus, and would not be surprised if similar problems arose in the future, from other editors. --Rschen7754 03:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking the bot so I can run other tasks. I look forward to discussing the issue further at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Procedure when author is .22Staff.22 with you when you're back at your computer, and seeing what consensus arises. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I cam here because of this edit which I have reverted.

Removing author=...staff..." is not a good idea. Lots of articles are written members of staff of an organisation. Further it is very likely to break the use of {{harvnb}} and similar templates in articles.

I assume from the comment above that you are not running an edit that removes "author=...staff..." and will not do so unless there is consensus to do so please confirm this is true. You write "I will be happy to revert the bots edits if there is consensus to do so", that is not the correct please revert the bots edit until there is shown to be a clear consensus for the change (eg an RfC at village pump). -- PBS (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@PBS: You are correct - I am no longer commenting out "staff" from the author parameter because of Rschen7754's posts above. Although I acted in good faith to try to abide by the rules, I'm now in the uncomfortable situation that while some people would happy for me to revert the edits, other people would not. I think the best thing to do is continue talking at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Procedure_when_author_is_.22Staff.22 and determine the best way to move forward. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

the whole point of bot edits is that they are uncontentious house keeping. This clearly was not an uncontentious edit therefore you should revert them. If in the future there is a consensus for them them the edits can be redone. -- PBS (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Help:Citation Style 1#Authors shows use of a comment for staff. Either CS1 is a codified style or it is just a bunch of templates that anyone can use in any manner they desire. Discussion continues on the CS1 talk page. --  Gadget850 ^talk 17:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's please continue the discussion at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Procedure_when_author_is_.22Staff.22 and I will be happy to take whatever action is agreed upon there. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The bot edits have been reverted - see Help talk:Citation Style 1#Reversion of bot edits for more details. GoingBatty (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)