User talk:LemmeyBOT

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LemmeyBOT (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per convention, this bot should either be unblocked as 'an approved and useful bot', or notification should be made to arbcom and BAG to strip it of its bot flag.

Decline reason:

Blocked for abusing multiple accounts: Bot malfunctioning: Operator is sock of indef blocked user Mitrebox— Ѕandahl 22:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Removing ref tags within nowiki tags

See User:Gadget850/Cite errors. For some reason, the bot removed the ref tags from within <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki>. Tags within a nowiki should probably be excluded. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug ??

BOT has restored version of article with great editorial mistake --Rjecina (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bot is malfunctioning. An administrator needs to block it. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken nested ref in edit history broke the bot. Aricle has since been fixed and should not reenter bots queue. --Lemmey talk 21:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi LemmeyBOT, great fixes on a few of the articles I am watching! That error in the cite tag was fixed very nicely. Thank-you, Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great fix! What a horrible Red mark in the references section until you came along! --haha169 (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug report

[1]

I'd rather have a broken cite tag than have half of the article get moved into a never-ending footnote :-) --Steve (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop combining "identical" refs into one name

There are reasons why an article might choose not to do it intentionally. Gimmetrow 23:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one day. Suggest you add code that makes the bot stop if messages appear on the talk page. Gimmetrow 23:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a ref appears in a comment then it should not be included in any type of matching. See this example Mikemill (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 68.209.2.187 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: SQL ^{Query me!} 19:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did that get it? SQL ^{Query me!} 19:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they seemed to be cascading off each other, very annoying. --Lemmey talk 19:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]