User talk:Anomie/Archives/2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Super Famicom

The Famicom Disk System was a magnetic disk media reader for for the NES. The Super FamiDisc was a Magnetic/Floptical disk/{c} system for the Super Famicom. I've reverted AND edited in the reference to the separate units. The second one also played the FDS games as well.(they're also both sitting in front of me :) As a side note, you also removed the CD add-on and data card games from from NeoGeo! How anyone can contribute so well to video game articles and not recall the NeoGeo CD is beyond me. Lostinlodos (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw an edit mentioning the non-SFC "Famicom Disc System", something called "FamiDrive" that has next to no Google hits, and a reference to "Floptical" that I could only find mention of related to an early SFC prototype. If you can supply some sort of reliable source related to the existence of any of this when you re-add the information, that would be helpful.
As for the NeoGeo CD edit, I overlooked that. Sorry! Not that I'm terribly clear on how it relates to the actual NeoGeo, and not that I've ever actually seen either of them. ;) Anomie 06:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE; your response on my page... I believe I edited over my reference tag in the last edit. My bad. Added it back in for you to check if you will. The NeoGeo CD unit had a dozen or more different flavours and was never really "finalized" in its design nor method. It was, however, quite popular over in Eastern Europe and Asia. You had the kind that plugged into the side (like the 2.0 Sega CD), the kind that plugged into the expansion port in the bottom or the one in the back (ala Sega CD 1.x). There was a third-party coupler that plugged into the side panel version of the drive and slid into the card port on the unit. Japan and Korea even shared a unit that was all in one (I believe some parts of Europe had seen it as well), much like the Neptune CDX. It was the most de-centralized "official" system, historically, but also the most sought after. Working ones still sell for over $100. online an over $2 in fan-shops. Lostinlodos (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except for the lack of a page number, author, publisher, and publication date, the reference looks ok (in general, try to include as much of the information asked for by {{cite book}} as you can, although use of the actual template is optional). I was hoping for something I had access to so I could learn more about this, but such is life. I Googled for the "FamiDisc" you mentioned earlier and checked the [ website] for the Digital Press you referenced, but still no luck for me. Anomie 13:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Damn spammers made them block the link, which means I must remove it to be able to edit my own talk page. Grr. Anomie 16:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arabic Text

Greetings. Some time ago you were helpful and fixed the bidirectional text problem with the Youra Eshaya article. Whilst I understood the concept of strong and weak characters, I cannot work out how to to insert the character U+200E just after the name as you suggested. I'm now trying to fix the Hardan al-Tikriti article and I would be grateful if you would explain what I need to do. Many thanks. Greenshed (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're on Windows, you could try holding Alt and typing "200e". Or you could just copy and paste a string that contains the character, like this: '‎'' You could also create a template like {{subst:User:Anomie/LRM}} that will insert that single character when substed. Anomie 01:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, cannot get this to work. Where exactly in the following string does the character go? '''Hardan ’Abdul Ghaffar al-Tikriti''' ({{lang-ar|'''حردان عبدالغفار التكريتي'''}}) (born 1925...Greenshed (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really, just about anywhere that makes sense. You could put it just after the last Arabic character (remember, in this context that may mean "to the left of the leftmost"), or in between the '''s, or between there and the }}, or even in the place of "born". Entering something like '''Hardan ’Abdul Ghaffar al-Tikriti''' ({{lang-ar|'''حردان عبدالغفار التكريتي{{subst:User:Anomie/LRM}}'''}}) (1925... should work perfectly. Anomie 00:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks for your help - it works now and hopefully I should know what to do next time. On a totally different note, I entirely agree with comments about exclusionists and deletionists damaging the usefulness of the Wikipedia and I was sorry to read that you are "fed up" even though I also am a bit fed up with the WP. What we need to be doing is working on reliability and referencing rather than spending much time and effort on deletion debates and pretty arbitrary notability criteria. Greenshed (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I left a reply to your comment. User:Dorftrottel 04:16, January 18, 2008

Template shell workaround works

Quoted from User talk:Grutness:
If you are willing to try something (and willing to trust me), please copy the code at User:Anomie/Sandbox.js into the bottom of your User:Grutness/monobook.js. The code there attempts to replace the function in question with a version that will hopefully work in Safari; if it does, we can put the {{editprotected}} onto MediaWiki talk:Common.js without any more fuss, and if not it could at least prove me wrong ;) It will also change the Wikipedia logo in the upper-left to have a red background to indicate that it is working.

If you don't want to trust me I completely understand. Anomie 04:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Anomie - your monobook work seems to have done the trick - for which many thanks. I'm seeing everything fine at Talk:Algeria now. Haven't tried any other similar pages, but I assume if it works for one it should work for all of them. Don't like the red background on the WP logo, though... will it cause any problems if I remove the

document.getElementById('p-logo').style.background='red';      document.getElementById('p-logo').style.border='5px solid red';" 

line in my monobook.js? Grutness...wha? 06:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problems at all, I only put that in so we would know the script was working even if it didn't fix the problem. As soon as someone takes care of the editprotected request I'm about to post, you could remove the whole thing. Anomie 13:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I had a bug in the code. Would you try the new version at User:Anomie/Sandbox.js? I have a test page now at User:Anomie/Sandbox3 for testing the nested tables that caused the problem last time. Anomie 15:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately no, the new version doesn't work - the thin lines are back. :( Grutness...wha? 23:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hrm... I just edited it, does the version now work? Anomie 23:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes - that seems to do the trick. Hopefully it won't cause any bugs downstream this time. Again, many thanks. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Playstation 3 FAC review

Thanks a ton for the review and comments over at the PlayStation 3 FAC. There were a few suggestions and corrections that you mentioned that I'm not sure what you meant. If you could clarify them, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks much. Regards. Thingg 03:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A NES" versus "An NES"

Regarding this edit, it is well-supported that the acronym can be pronounced "en-ee-es", "ness", "nezz", and even perhaps "Nintendo"; there is certainly no consensus on the issue. The same situation arises with SNES (where it is even mentioned and sourced); my solution for that article was to avoid using the indefinite article completely in connection with the abbreviation. Anomie 01:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Anomie, thanks for that. I'll get my bot to refrain from modifying SNES or NES in future. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


For the quick answer on the table! Remember (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I changed the image to the gold sonic and you removed that too, what can i use? Gaogier Talk! 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sega#Non-free images. Anomie 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some reason requested

Could you give this sandbox: User:Krator/Sandbox3 a look and tell me whether it's A) correct and B) correctly presented? I trust your judgement in this matter, and you've given the case some more thought than I have already, judging from your proposals on the Workshop page. User:Krator (t c) 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe my memory is just biased, but the way it looks to me is that TTN only comes to WT:VG in the hope of getting some others to help him gang up on whoever is edit warring with him over a video game character page. The typical phrasing of his request strikes me as being along the lines of "Some fan is wikilawyering to keep these character articles that should obviously be redirects. Please come help me get a consensus to keep the articles non-existant." I didn't wade into the Bulbasaur diff, but the three non-Sonic diffs seem to fit this pattern (the Sonic diffs are neutral enough to require AGF).
As for the second section, it's a good overview of the different types of discussion. I'm not sure if you intend it to have anything to do with TTN, but either way it really doesn't. Also, it implies that TTN had something to do with founding WP:VG/C, but the discussion linked to shows TTN wanting what I would call a "deletion blitz task force" and others came up with WP:VG/C instead. To analogize, it's like giving the speck of dirt credit for creating the pearl. Anomie 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I implemented some changes to counter the above messages that were not intended to be contained within my evidence. The evidence is now on the RFAR page, though the sandbox is updated as well. User:Krator (t c) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Calvin and Hobbes

I trust this is the right way to do it. As I understand it, anybody can edit ANYTHING in Wikipedia. I considered the Calvin and Hobbes article very, very poorly written - lots of repeat information, plus unecessary block quotes. If a person wants to write this much information on Calvin and Hobbes, he ought to write a book instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mak1457 (talkcontribs) 01:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you actually read through the awful mess you made of the article? It would be better if you copy the article to your userspace (say User:Mak1457/Calvin and Hobbes rewrite), edit it there until you've fixed the formatting problems, and then bring it up for discussion on the talk page. Just deleting huge swaths of text and then reverting when people undo your mistakes is not the "right way to do it". Anomie 01:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looked fine to me - and besides the article was bad to begin with. I'm surprised no one else has complained - probably thanks to you "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others..." I have the right to edit and help articles along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mak1457 (talkcontribs) 01:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll give you three examples, based on this version of your edits:
  1. In the lead, you had this garbage (and some awkward wording):

    …and Hobbes, his energetic and sardonic—albeit stuffed—tiger. web|url= title=Calvin and Hobbes Trivia|accessdate = 2007-05-12}}</ref> The strip was published syndicated daily…

  2. Later in the article, you had this non sequitur in the section on Calvinball:

    …The only consistent rule is that Calvinball may never be played with the same rules twice.[30] While the ride is sometimes the focus of the strip,[31] it also frequently serves as a counterpoint or visual metaphor while Calvin ponders the meaning of life, death, God, or a variety of other weighty subjects.[32][33] Most of their rides end in a spectacular crash when they ride off a cliff…

  3. In the references, you broke #8, #9, #13, and everything after #29.
Hence my question as to whether you had actually read the article after your edits, and my reversion of those edits as vandalism. IMO, the existing article is actually fairly good; it needs some revision, but not with an axe. Anomie 11:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Anomie, I know where you're coming from, but do consider softening your tone with Mak1457. I think the editor means well and is still trying to get a feel for editing on Wikipedia. An extra bit of patience would not be amiss. alanyst /talk/ 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ambox skins

We are now deploying two new box types and CSS classes for the article message boxes. You can see them in MediaWiki:Common.css as "ambox-speedy" and "ambox-protection". If you have the time and feel the inclination: You might want to add those to the skin you made at Wikipedia:Ambox CSS classes/Skins.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:The Kent book

Thanks for finding that, Anomie. Unfortunately, I'll be leaving IU for the summer on April 30. I won't have any time to look through the reference before then because I have to study for finals. Sorry that I can't help with that. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mega Drive, revisited

Hi, Anomie. I've been away for a while, finishing up with finals and stuff at IU, but now I'm ready to pick up on the Mega Drive article again and push it to FA, making it the first FA I've ever worked on. Anyway, I returned to my home in Fort Wayne, Indiana and to my dismay found out that not one single copy of the Kent book is in any library in the entire city. Sorry, but this means I won't be able to read the book and use it for citations. I did add a couple citations and remove some paragraph providing trivial information about a couple Genesis emulators (which is likely not notable and also was added with no citations whatsoever). I can also see you've had some work with expanding the console wars section. Anyway, would you call it unreasonable to try and send this to WP:FAC by the end of the month? I'm going to continue working, mostly in the sourcing area, because every article always needs more sources, especially for uncited stuff, and no one ever wants to do it. If you're going to reply to this here, please notify me on my talk page. Thanks. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fortunately whoever had it checked out from the library here actually returned it on time, and I have it sitting here on my bookshelf now. Now the only problem is finding time to rewrite the sections that I can edit using this source (especially if I get distracted); Console wars definitely will see more work, and 32-bit era up to discontinuance of the console, and somewhere in the article I can write something good about the TMSS. I wish someone could flesh out the Technical specifications a bit more; I know all about the SNES but nothing about the MD, or I would try to do it.
I don't know about the end of the month for FAC, it might happen or it might not. There's currently a backlash against VG articles at FAC, so IMO it would be best to err on the side of caution. Anomie 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I understand. Unfortunately, I'm not a tech junkie, so I can't really help out with the technical specifications. The only thing I really know is that the Mega Drive was technologically inferior to the SNES, save for the faster processor, and that "Blast Processing" was a completely fake term which didn't deserve its own article and made me redirect it. The best I was able to do was what I did, converting two paragraphs to prose from tables and adding citations for what I could find. I can see you're distracted, but maybe I can give you a hand with the Joe Montana Football game article. I used to own it when I was about 8 or 9 and I do have a bit of a soft spot for it, so I guess I can put in some work. That is, if I don't get distracted with a certain small WikiProject where I'm the de facto leader. Tonight I'm going to write an essay for Wikipedia first, though. After getting sick of seeing all these short little stubby articles with no content at WP:AFD, I have decided to write an essay to help users write good stubs that are easier to expand and are better quality stubs (and I'll probably put it in userspace before moving it to Wikipedia space when I'm satisfied with it.) Anyway, good luck, and I'll see about starting an organized effort at this at the Mega Drive talk page. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 03:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neat, although I'm pretty much done with the article. I might change it to a different source for the release date though (Sega-16 has an interview with one of the developers of the game, for one), the timeline in Kent makes so little sense that I wonder if it isn't an error where he says January 1990 instead of 1991. In fact, I'm going to do it now. Anomie 03:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, okay. I'll just take a look at it later and see what I can do to add on to it. My focus is more on the Mega Drive article and getting that to FA right now, in addition to building up Crush 40 (which was really my first article I worked on) as high as I can, though I doubt it will ever make FA. Thanks for all of your help, by the way, including the peer review that really helped the Mega Drive article pass GA, the comments you made to the GA reviewer, and all the effort you have put into the article. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 04:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re: my signature

Quoted from User talk:Tomeczek:
Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia! You might not be aware of this, but images are not allowed in signatures as they are an unnecessary drain on server resources and can be distracting. I hope you don't mind that I've removed the image from the pages you have already signed. Happy editing! Anomie 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for calling my attention. I didn't know about this. Have a good editing! --Tomeczek Message 08:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd put my money on it being something specific to you since it was tested in FF 1/2 on win32, Linux, and Mac OSX, but anything is possible. Let me know what you find out. Since its probably the last onload hook it is subject to being broken by bugs in anything that comes before it. Ah. Are you using classic or some other non-default skin? --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed my comment as soon as I realized something odd was going on, it turns out my ad blocker was stripping the webbugs that new code used and the script was not considering the possible failure. Anomie 01:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your FIRST Barnstar?

It's hard to believe that this is your first Barnstar, given the quantity and quality of your contributions to WP. No wonder you were in a bad mood :) Something wrong with the big picture here -- how long does it take to give someone a visible "thank you" when they go the extra mile (1.6 km) for you? A minute, maybe two? ... When I logged in and saw "new message", it brought me here first. I was going to ask you please to proofread the new version -- but you had already beaten me to it. Stay strong and be well, and Illegitimi non carborundum. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just a note that I put {{Uw-ublock-famous}} up for deletion because it looked redundant and wasn't used in the current UTM. MBisanz talk 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: TfD nomination of Template:Uw-afterfinal

Quoted from User talk:AubreyEllenShomo:
Template:Uw-afterfinal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Anomie 19:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I added a "no objection to deletion" comment to the TfD. It was a provisional idea that didn't turn out to be too useful. ⇔ ÆS dt @ 20:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I did go ahead and userfy it, as well, anticipating the success of the TfD, but keeping it in case I find need of it in the future. ⇔ ÆS dt @ 20:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTE: This is a cut-and-paste copy of the reply I made on my talk page, posted here per the box at the top of your talk page requesting that replies be directed here and make use of your quote template. ⇔ ÆS dt @ 01:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: {{fact}}

Whoops. Fixed. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've moved all the Test series template from Category:User_warning_templates to a subcategory Category:TestTemplates, I'm wondering if I should do the same for the UTM/UW series and if so, what I should call the subcat? MBisanz talk 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copied to WT:UTM for wider input. Anomie 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks, I should've remembered that (not worrying about performance). RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 05:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uw-speedy templates

Thanks for catching and reverting the changes to the uw-speedy templates, as well as the friendly note you left on the experimenting editor's talk page. I noticed the consensus-less changes while at work today, but did not have a chance to fix them until I got home. Thank you for your speedy work! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article war!

Hey Anomie. I'm sure there are more pressing issues for both of but debating the small stuff is a nice change. Regarding {{Uw-c&pmove‎}}, the formulation doesn't work with an article syntatically, and yes, I changed it mindful of the piping of the link.

  • at the help desk
  • at the village pump
  • at the community portal

By contrast:

  • at requested moves
  • at articles for creation
  • at WikiProject Biology

Cut and paste move repair holding pen falls quite neatly into the second example set and hurts my writer's ear when written in conformity with the first. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's just the opposite for me, the version without the article hurts my mental ear. FWIW, your first two examples in the second set sound off to me as well, not for the lack of an article but for being common phrases used as proper nouns. I would probably say "Wikipedia:Requested moves", or at least "Requested moves" with a capital letter.
I you really want to remove the article again, I won't fight over it. OTOH, I think "Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen" would work better. Anomie 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Where is #tag:references documented? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help:Magic words. It's not specific to references, {{#tag:}} can be used with any XML-style tag to get templates and template parameters to work right. Anomie 18:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I truely racked my brains trying to figure the non-translocating wikified dates... checked my number closing brackets etc. Then realised only difference in my coding and yours to which I was slowly edging in my own sandboxes was my careful insertion of spaces for clear coding layout - doh ! Was adding a space into the iso values :-( Teach me to space out my "}}" But thanks for your patience with my stupidity on this... now where is that bucket of sand :-) David Ruben Talk 00:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's small things like that that are often the hardest to find. If you have any other troubles with the template feel free to leave me a note at my talk page. Anomie 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, problem solved with this edit. However, thanks for your help! :) Gary King (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Green save button

Thanks for the suggestion on using monobook.css and especially for the link. It made it easy to create the page. It works great. Thanks again for the suggestion Dbiel (Talk) 23:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi anomie. Recently the SPC7110 decompression algorithm was figured out. The code is really really really slow. I tried optimizing it a bit, but it's still a total nightmare. Any chance you want to help out like you did with the S-DD1? We'd appreciate it. You know where on IRC to find us. -Nach (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: 49.1 versus 49.10

Quoted from User talk:Silver Edge:
Regarding this edit, I think the zero should go back in. 49.1 implies that the true number is anywhere from 49.05 to 49.15 before rounding, while 49.10 implies a narrower range of 49.095–49.105. The source has the precision to support the latter, and it matches precision with the 23.35 and 61.91 taken from the same source. BTW, good catch on the US/Americas issue. Anomie 11:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll revert my edit and change it back to 49.10. --Silver Edge (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]



What are you saying... he said himself the |2 option disables caching... that's very bad... and the whole reason I brought this to the community. // FrankB 00:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are so completely misunderstanding the statement that it's not funny. If a template with no parameters is used multiple times in the same article, MediaWiki evaluates it only once and pastes the same output in for every occurrence; if any parameters are passed, MediaWiki re-evaluates the template. This caching of individual template output within a single page rendering operation should not be confused with Wikipedia's squid caches (which AFAIK don't care at all which templates you use on the page) or with your browser cache (which also doesn't care about Wikipedia templates). Anomie 00:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're absolutely right... it's NOT FUNNY. Which is why I raised the issue for lost performance in a large multiple is even less funny.
   So Great... and makes sense... so why the snide juvenile commentary instead of discussing the issue and saying exactly that minded that I had invited in a lot of laypeople... no matter how out of touch my base knowledge. I didn't know, and don't know, so called the question. If there are performance issues, then the question needs raised... Brion's comment indicated to me that there were. I have no dog in this hunt save "Performance"... I have admittedly a perception the system has been updating slower... and disclaimed it as non-causal. I don't know.
  • The other thing is, if the browsers don't support uniformity on twin columns, then it should be supported by cached twin columns... the system software[1] can certainly figure out when composing a page that there are 34, 43, or 78 references in the list and table them consistently and cleanly. I could write code for that in C/C# in less than an hour and I really haven't coded in a lot of years. Last I knew, the system software was C language based PHP ... should be a simple thing. Relying on script tech to do such dynamically if it's not a reliable feature is silly when a magic word could do it faster and reliably. // FrankB 01:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you help and advise me on this?
  • You know this whole "red herring issue" occurred trying to figure out whether this/these answer/s was/were "ready" about a commons "feature extension" that can be handy keeping categories straight on the commons. (). Since you have knowledge of scripts (I infer) can you take a look at his reported script and maybe check it out. Thanks // FrankB 15:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

↑ I saw a post on the two columns and reflist issue, leading me there.


Thanks for adding the standard stuff to it! DMacks (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is it possible to default FireFox to one column and allow users to set their CSS for multiple columns? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be possible, just see my proposed rewrite but don't set column-count (and -moz-column-count) in MediaWiki:Common.css. Seems kind of pointless to do it that way though. Anomie 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just tested this. With .references-small {font-size: 90%; -moz-column-count: 4;} in my .css, any article that does not set the columns now shows with four columns. This may be the better route by letting users define their own look depending on browser and screen size. If they are forewarned of the caveats, they can live with them. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Current event clock.svg

Hi, Anomie. I've used the Image:Current event clock.svg, created by you, to create two other images, Image:Olympic torch current event.svg and Image:Olympics current event.svg. If there are any problems, with license or whatever, please contact me at my swedish page (I'm not checking this project often enough). Thank you. Best regards // Mankash (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for trying out {{talkarchivehist}}. Unfortunately, the archiveid parameter is set incorrectly – it needs to be a revision of the archive page. I think this change should fix it:


I added a clarification at Template:Talkarchivehist/doc, but I'm not sure that it's enough. I've been working on a step-by-step how-to that could be helpful. Flatscan (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can do cross-page diffs? Wow, I never knew that. Too bad that means you have to perform at least two edits to put the template on an archive page, since {{subst:REVISIONID}} doesn't work. Anomie 20:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure how I found that out, but it's pretty useful for validating content moved between pages such as cut-and-paste archives and article merges. I guess {{REVISIONID}} can only be populated after the page is saved, since it's null during editing and when subst'd. I originally used it for the current archive diff, but the cur keyword works better. Flatscan (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
bugzilla:12694 is about that issue. If comment #2 is accurate and the revisionid is allocated in the usual manner in step 3, I know it could be fixed if Wikipedia were using PostgreSQL (and quite easily database-wise, although php-code-wise it might or might not be difficult), but I'm not familiar enough with MySQL to know if it can use a similar trick. In PG, a "sequence" is a separate database object, and the default value expression on the revisionid column simply does a nextval call on that sequence object; there's nothing stopping you from doing the nextval call yourself before step 1 instead of letting the default value expression do so in step 3. Anomie 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like you mention, the difficulty probably lies outside of the database. Personally, I would be reluctant to change a single DB insert into select, process, insert. I left a brief note of this discussion at Template talk:Talkarchivehist. Thanks for your comments. Flatscan (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protecting Archives

Your archive says: "This is an archive of past discussions. 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.". You can ask an administrator, such as Rlevse to protect your archive page, and only you would be able to edit it in case you need to. -- IRP (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, but I'll probably just leave it as it is. If anyone does try to edit it, it'll show in my watchlist and I can easily enough revert them. Anomie 22:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Nintendo bot

You can go ahead and file the bot request per WP:BRFA whenever you get the chance. I just finished stub-sorting all Nintendo-related stubs, so there is nothing more on my side that I can do to categorize Nintendo TF articles at the moment. MuZemike (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol wait.svg BRFA filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 4. Anomie 01:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your posting of 3RR warning on my Talk page

You might do well to read the guidelines to which you so kindly gave me links. -- Philcha (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I have read them. Including the part where my bot's userspace is effectively my own as the bot account is considered an alternate account of mine, and the part where I am allowed to remove any comments I wish from my user talk pages (which includes said bot's), and the part where WP:3RR does not apply to my reversions of edits to my own userspace (which again includes said bot's). Have a nice day. Anomie 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes to Legacy Parkway

Question, why did you bot change

<ref name="ksl"/><ref name="ksl cost">{{cite news|url=|title=Many commuters use FrontRunner after I-15 wreck|last=Adams|first=Andrew|coauthors=Adam Thomas|date=2008-07-30|publisher=[[KSL-TV|]]|accessdate=2008-07-31}}</ref>

to the generic {{citation}} link. {{Cite news}} is a normal citation template. --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two references there, "ksl" and "ksl cost". "ksl" had been a broken ref,[2] because someone deleted the definition in this edit. The bot copied the contents from just before that revision to fix the "ksl" reference. The "ksl cost" reference was not touched, the diff only shows it as being moved because it works by line and the "ksl" reference body spans multiple lines. Anomie 16:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see now, the original cite used {{citation}}. Nevermind :) --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicate reference name bug

Details on User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Hopefully you can ignore this particular case (the bot can't usefully solve it) and get it back on track! Many thanks, —Sladen (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure this is really a bug, as the bot just takes the same version of the reference that the Cite.php extension was displaying. I'm going to consider the issue though, and see if I can come up with a reasonable fix. Anomie 22:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


in the article k, what do you mean that "K" is spelled as "Kay" in English? how do we spell a letter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arisedrew (talkcontribs) 02:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A number of letter articles have their names' spellings sourced to the Oxford English Dictionary and/or Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Note that it's the spelling of the name of the letter, and not the spelling of the letter itself (which would make little sense). Anomie 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oh i get it, thanks for answering —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arisedrew (talkcontribs) 20:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning templates

Thanks for the speedy reverts ([3], etc.) to the warning templates back to WP:UTM/WP:UW standards! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. As you may know, I have a public watchlist just for watching uw-* templates and now a bot to keep it up to date. That makes it pretty easy to keep up on changes. Anomie 19:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If you feel the need, feel free to move them - otherwise, I won't be able to mess with it until later in the week - I'll be gone with a family illness. Thanks! -UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please indent?

Hi. Can you please indent? It makes it easier to read discussions. Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The message I replied to is indented 3 colons. My post is indented 4 colons. How exactly am I not indenting? Anomie 01:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I replied to the (said) 3 colon message (23.21). You replied after me and put your message above mine (23.23). That's fine but you should have indented 5 colons to make it clear that your message followed mine while it didn't reply to it. This is pretty minor - hence I did it for you. . . . Hope you've got it now. --Kleinzach 05:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Help:Edit conflict, I'm surprised the software merged instead of throwing an error like it usually does. Anyway, it appears we have different indentation philosophies: I don't indent to be under an unrelated comment. Anomie 10:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tags discussion

"This all seems to be one editor, Robert K S, who has an absolute hatred of any tags on articles at all." Actually, I've made clear that some tags are useful and necessary. As you point out, a "sources needed" tag placed at the top of an article "inviting readers to contribute sources they may know of" is proper to the talk space, not the article space, as it does not supply information germane to the article. Do you not agree that the first thing at the top of every article on Wikipedia should be valid information about the article subject rather than information about the state of the article? Robert K S (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I stated in an editor's comment to my original message, I'm not going to argue about this. I said everything I felt the need to say in my original message. Anomie 15:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drawbacks of digital signatures

As requested, I made an entry in the talk page of the Digital signature article. Please make your comments there, I've very curious to see why you disagree. Cheers, Skippydo (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for fixing the template. Do we always require a space before the " | " ? I was wondering why it was not showing up even after purging the page. Thanks again -- Tinu Cherian - 11:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. It's not a space there, BTW, it's a missing "|"; "Open" has to be the 3rd parameter, so something (even an empty string) needs to be passed for the second. Anomie 12:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, Ok. I think I missed it. Thanks for the help -- Tinu Cherian - 16:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]



I appreciate your edit in the snes9x page along with whatever insight that you provided for the situation. However with my primary computer currently down from some sort of infection I cannot access the site without advancing its condition. I would check out the link from my friends computer but after telling them of my situation they wouldn't hear of it.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble could you please,(PLEASE!), copy and paste whatever is linked to the page? You would save me so much trouble and pain of narrowing down whatever put down my computer.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tranceduo (talkcontribs) 04:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied at Talk:snes9x. Anomie 11:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot

For carrying out that bot request on WikiProject Neurology, saves me a hell of a lot of time :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: WikiProject Neurology banner

Quoted from User talk:Cyclonenim:
Now that {{WikiProject Neurology}} is orphaned, do you intend to nominate it for TFD? Anomie 23:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, I completely forgot to do that. Thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quoted from User talk:Cyclonenim:
Looks like TW had an error and didn't manage to add the entry to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 21. Anomie 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed :) I'm liking the quote template, isn't that a bit of a pain to add manually every time though? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not too bad, and I just hate having to piece a conversation together from messages on several different talk pages. Anomie 16:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IEC prefixes

You may wish to comment on this discussion at MOSNUM. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eeew, MOSNUM. I'm not going anywhere near that cesspool, I see enough of the crazies on other pages where they're pushing their date nonsense. Besides, is there really any chance they'd listen to me when Omegatron put the argument better at User:Omegatron/Binary prefix rationale (which is already linked in there anyway)? Anomie 23:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Bot

Cool bot, animebot, but im not sure it is working proplerly as it deleted part of the intro on weather. Just a query. Thanks. Andy (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, deleted part of the intro.[4] AnomieBOT didn't even touch the intro, he just edited the "Cause" section to fix a reference broken by's deletion.[5] I see you undid both edits,[6] which is the best thing to do in that situation. Anomie 13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning about civility

You've been swinging around words like "vandal" and "disruption" to describe what appear to be a dispute with another editor who appears to be acting in good-faith. That does not make make for a collegial editing environment, and it makes coming to a consensus on the issue more, not less, difficult. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Comment on content, not contributors. Nandesuka (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will have to disagree with you, as I find that user's behavior to be disruptive rather than constructive. There's no reason not to discuss things where people will see them rather than in some out-of-the-way corner of the wiki. Anomie 12:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is what a talk page on a template is for -- to discuss the issues that pertain to the template. The comment appears not to have been made in good faith, and I agree with NAndesuka's comments. Please be more civil in future replies. seicer | talk | contribs 12:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, and I could try to discuss things with you at User talk:Seicer/Archive 3. But User talk:Seicer would be more constructive, and if I insisted on posting my comments on your archive page I would be being disruptive. Anomie 12:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One is an archive; the other is a template talk page. Big difference. seicer | talk | contribs 12:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the contrived example. Would you support discussing broken archiving at Wikipedia talk:Bot requests/Archive 22, the incorrect documentation in {{scinote/e}} at Template talk:scinote/e, print stylesheets at MediaWiki talk:Print.css, asking for help with your monobook.js at User talk:Seicer/monobook.js, and so on (and throwing a fit if someone moved your comment to a more appropriate forum)? Anomie 13:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, Nandesuka, I don't believe I ever used the word "vandal" in relation to this issue, except as part of the name of the templates in question. I also did not use the word "disruptive" until Scott MacDonald refused to bring the discussion to where people were more likely to see it and insisted on having it his way instead; I'd hardly call that "throwing around". Anomie 13:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just so you know, I don't think this was at all a good approach to resolving this matter. You're getting feedback, I see, from a number of folk to that effect. It may be time to internalise that feedback instead of digging in. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I have acknowledged that. I'm also getting unwarranted attacks from various admins who seem to have a thin blue line mentality, and I wish they would stop. Anomie 17:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AnomieBOT seems to have got stuck in a loop on Political party strength in Arizona

AnomieBOT seems to have got itself stuck in a loop on the Political party strength in Arizona article: revision history. Thanks Rjwilmsi 09:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crap. Bot stopped for now. Anomie 15:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, for future reference, posting anything to this page will stop the bot if anything like that happens again. Anomie 15:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed now. Thanks for the bug report. Anomie 15:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Rjwilmsi 17:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're the VG botter, it seems?

WikiProject Sega and its task force, WikiProject Sega/Sonic have moved to task forces of Video games. As you helped last time (and it looks like here), it would be helpful of you to run the bot. In this specific instance, the Sonic task force option needs to be transferred to WikiProject Video games banner. Can you help? --Izno (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies. You'll want a link of Sega's banner: Template:Segaproject. --Izno (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: Replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sega#Bot request.

Infobox Aircraft replacement

If you haven't been put off by the naysayers, I'm happy to take you up on your offer. Here's a list of the fields in the old infobox and their destinations:

  • name → Infobox Aircraft Begin
  • image → Infobox Aircraft Begin
  • caption → Infobox Aircraft Begin
  • long caption → Infobox Aircraft Begin
  • type → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • national origin → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • manufacturer → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • designer → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • first flight → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • introduction → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • retired → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • status → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • primary user → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • more users → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • produced → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • number built → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • program cost → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • unit cost → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • developed from → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • variants with their own articles → Infobox Aircraft Type

A small number of instances of Infobox Aircraft probably also still carry a deprecated parameter called "subtemplate"; this can simply be dropped.

From time to time, I've noticed users unfamiliar with how templates work drop extra parameters into templates in the hope that they'll show up in the output. I'm not aware of any specific examples of this in Infobox Aircraft; but if Anomiebot comes across any instances of any parameters outside the schema listed above, these can of course safely be dropped as well!

Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice you left out four existing Infobox Aircraft parameters:
  • infoboxwidth → drop?
  • logo → Infobox Aircraft Begin
  • introduced → Infobox Aircraft Type
  • manufacturers → Infobox Aircraft Type
I have the code mostly finished, but I may wait a few more hours to see if the current discussion results in anything. Anomie 04:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow - sorry, I was working from the template documentation, which is clearly inadequate! In all four cases, yes, this is how the bot should handle them. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks on a job well done! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ajax preview suggestions

Hey, I just started using your ajax preview, and it is great.

Minor suggestion: after the preview loads, can you set the focus to the window? This would simulate the normal loading the preview page. Sometimes I habitually hit the space bar, to page down in the window. After the ajax preview, focus remains on the “Ajax Preview” button, so hitting the space bar re-refreshes the preview. I'm using Safari/Mac.

Thanks. Michael Z. 2008-11-20 08:02 z

Clear your cache, and let me know if it works for you now. Anomie 13:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, thank you! Michael Z. 2008-11-20 16:31 z

Your have been awarded the Template Barnstar!

Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG The Template Barnstar
In recognition of your outstanding efforts to keep the uw-series templates both consistent and standardized, I hereby award you this barstar! Keep up the great work! -Kralizec! (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please comment on WP:REFNAME query if you can

Hi, I was wondering whether you would be able to answer this query of mine about WP:REFNAME and named references? Thanks in advance Rjwilmsi 23:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied at that page. Anomie 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you run AnomieBOT 8 again?

After tagging the fluid/relativity/acoustics articles, it would be very usefull.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβςWP Physics} 22:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Part of the code for the Acoustics tagging automatically assessed anything it could figure out how to, and there were only 37 pages tagged for the other task. But I'd like to get a blanket approval for the AutoAssessor anyway to go with the WikiProjectTagger, so I'll BRFA it anyway (since AnomieBOT 8 was specified as "one-time", it would need a new BRFA). At the same time, I can also upgrade it to assess stubs, templates (if any), and so on. Anomie 00:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BRFA away!Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβςWP Physics} 00:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BRFA filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 15 Anomie 00:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Quick note, before you run the bot, could you tag all pages in Category:Physicists by nationality (all recursion levels) with the physics template (and might as well add {{WP Bio}} if it's not there while we're at it)?Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβςWP Physics} 07:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure, I can even do that without a new BRFA, but I need to drop a note at WT:WikiProject Biography (here) to make sure there are no objections from their end (you represent WikiProject Physics, so I can forgo asking there) and to get a few questions answered. I'll ask you the questions here:
    1. The category list looks OK to me, with the possible exception of Category:Albert Einstein. Do you want that included?
    2. Any task force or other parameters, or just the plain {{physics}}?
    3. Should I tag the subcategories themselves (with class=category), and/or any other non-article namespaces?
    Anomie 00:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, while we're at it, let's go more general. Let's tag all articles in Category:Physics stubs and in Category:Physicists, and all their subcategories except:

Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβςWP Physics} 04:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Physics stubs looks good, and that only affects the physics part of the request.
From Category:Physicists, might you also want to exclude Category:Cosmologists, Category:Aerodynamicists, and Category:Opticians (since you're excluding Astronomers already)? You could also see if WP Bio wanted to add those extra physicist categories into their half of the request (they'd probably want to keep Astronomers in their half, of course); otherwise, on Friday I was planning to start the original run (I figure a week is a good enough time to wait for replies). Anomie 04:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finally starting the tagging run. For now, I've left out the three categories I mentioned above as being questionable (we can always run them later). Anomie 02:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would tag Category:Aerodynamicists (with the additional parameter |fluid-dynamics=yes) and Category:Opticians (no special parameters). All entries will be reviewed over the next few months so there's no real consequences if some entries don't belong. I agree that cosmologists should be left out. I'll probably make a request for them later, but for WP:AST tagging. Anyway thanks for running the bot.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβςWP Physics} 04:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Anomie 05:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bot seems to be done with the tagging, after tagging 2533 articles with {{Physics}} and 1137 with {{WPBiography}} (685 tagged for both). Still waiting on the BRFA for the other request. Anomie 19:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the other task is now running. Anomie 23:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Quoted from User talk:TJ Spyke:
This is the second time I've had to notify you about your use of AWB to un-redirect a number of links on Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System/Archive 1; I have again reverted these changes. Please review the AWB Rules of use, in particular the parts about "Make sure you [...] have NOT changed the meaning" (this did), "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits" (this was insignificant), and "Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices" (this did not: see WP:R#NOTBROKEN). Anomie 12:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was not insignificant and did not change the meaning. The meaning was still the same and didn't affect the edit, all it did was fix a link. Reverting it is petty and a waste of resources and your time. There was no justification for it. TJ Spyke 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It made no difference to the text of the page or to the final target of the link, and thus as stated at WP:R#NOTBROKEN the edit should not have been made as it is not worth even the tiny bit of resources it took. It did, however, change the meaning: when people were discussing merging and redirecting Famicom, changing their text to link to Nintendo Entertainment System changes the meaning of their statements. Again, please stop abusing AWB to make this type of edit. Anomie 21:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit summary

Regarding [7], my mistake, I did not realize that the named/orphaned ref was left in there. No need to get hostile about it in the edit summary, it was an honest mistake. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please accept my apologies for any offense. Anomie 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you and I am also sorry for not realizing the easier solution to this that you pointed out - so thank you for that and I will keep that in mind in the future. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you

I did want to say that, separate from this particular issue, I wanted to thank you in general for your work with AnomieBOT (talk · contribs). Prior to this I have definitely seen the bot in work on a bunch of other articles and it is very useful and good for the project. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I've seen you around and would like you to join BAG, please review and accept Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Anomie and then transclude it to WT:BAG if you desire. Cheers. MBisanz talk 02:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I just had a comment regarding a closing of discussion on wp:pui. I don't think there are any PUI templates but do you think AnomieBOT could close some discussons automatically like it does on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion? Garion96 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AnomieBOT certainly could, the format of the discussion pages even looks the same as IFD so it would be easy to adapt the IFD code. But since there is currently no process for "closing" a discussion at that page and AnomieBOT tends to insist on even "keep" or "sent to IFD" results being closed, I would need to see a consensus among the editors there that the extra process is actually desired. Also, LegoBot was just approved to do related tasks at PUI, and I wouldn't want to step on Legoktm's toes there. Anomie 02:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't affect my bot if you close them like that. I wouldn't have the time to write something like that anyway. If you can Anomie, please do. LegoKontribsTalkM 02:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That leaves the "extra process" question, but if Legobot continues to handle the Holding cell then I can dispense with most of that (since AnomieBOT won't have to detect "kept" images, just deleted ones). I'll raise the question at WT:PUI to see if the denizens there want it. Anomie 04:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just saw your comment at WT:PUI. Sorry btw, I totally missed your response here, forgot to put your talk page on my watchlist. Garion96 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A "Also, remove unsourced assertion about positional numeral systems" does someone have to provide a source to say that water is wet? how dense are you?Scientus (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no need for personal attacks. Consider positional sexagesimal, that doesn't seem to use "A" to represent 10. Anomie 04:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for alphabetizing List_of_skin-related_conditions! kilbad (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't think I forgot...

Vitruvian Barnstar.png The da Vinci Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your great work on creating the IFDCloser-module for AnomieBOT which helps us greatly and works just fantastic. Great job! SoWhy 12:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I actually quite enjoyed creating that task. Anomie 21:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muro Bot

Hi Anomie, I think that some problems could be fixed if the bot does "cosmetic changes". With this, the bot adds minor changes like in this edition. But I don't know if I can do that on this wiki or not. Regards. Muro de Aguas (write me) 15:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you didn't request permission for "cosmetic changes", you technically shouldn't do them; I don't know that anyone would block the bot over it though. I see three types of changes in the diff you linked:
  1. Changing "==header==" to "== header =="
  2. Changing "*list" to "* list"
  3. Changing &ndash; to –
I usually find all the above changes to simply clutter the diff, making it harder to tell what the bot actually did. The first and second are particularly problematic, as some editors will make the opposite change to make the wikitext slightly smaller byte-wise; since neither make a difference to the page output, it's probably best to leave them as the human editors entered them. A case could be made for the third, as "&ndash;" is really just obfuscation as far as MediaWiki is concerned, but I would really just have the bot stick to its assigned task and leave that to humans as well. Anomie 18:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks for the answer. Muro de Aguas (write me) 18:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has Christmas come early?

Vitruvian Barnstar.png The da Vinci Barnstar
I, Maxim, award you this barnstar for making AnomieBOT, which has been an invaluable aid in my frequent restructuring and copyediting of Tiny Thompson during its still-ongoing FAC. Maxim(talk) 14:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, and you're welcome! Anomie 16:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Level 4im vandalism

Well - Level 3 assumes bad faith; the user is asking the vandal to desist, but they said "Please stop." If I made a careless mistake let me know. MHLUtalk 14:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can bring it up on WT:UTM if you want, that way we can get opinions from a wider group of interested editors. Anomie 16:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Super-Nifty Script

I have installed your user script, but I don't see any pretty colors. Any idea as to what is wrong? Thanks, Jake WartenbergTalk 21:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you include the CSS file mentioned in the instructions? Or, if you don't like my color choices, you could copy those to your own monobook.css and adjust the colors to suit yourself. Anomie 22:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I missed that! It works now. This is pretty cool... --Jake WartenbergTalk 00:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Confirm SUL requests at fr:Wikipédia:Demande de renommage de compte utilisateur/Usurpation and zh:Wikipedia:更改用户名. Anomie 04:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done You can come over at fr: to activate the SUL. Happy holidays, Popo le Chien throw a bone 17:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
zh wiki  Done. Happy new year!--Mywood (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting a bot-related demolition job

Looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda will be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo. I'm wondering if I can get another BRFA going (as was done with the latter not too long ago) to remove all instances of the {{Zeldaproj}} templates and annexing onto the {{WikiProject Video games}} templates the "tf=Nintendo" designation onto all talk pages of the WikiProject's articles. MuZemike (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. BRFA filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 19 Anomie 03:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bot approved, let me know when you're ready for the replacement to run. Anomie 12:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go ahead and run the bot when ready. There's really nothing else to do when the articles lose categorization. MuZemike (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Hello, I'correted the problem in NobelBot, have you another questions? محمد نبيل برّيري (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I normally leave pywikipedia interwiki bots to others who are more familiar with that framework; someone should be along shortly if they have any questions. Thank you for the prompt response. Anomie 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks re: Kilkenny

Thanks for wikifying List of townlands in County Kilkenny. I did some more work on it and now it's both sortable and realistically editable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 11:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conflict of interest guidelines

Hi, an attempt is being made to get consensus on the COI clarification issue. You might want to put forward your views at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Clarification. --Helenalex (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]