User talk:Anomie/Archives/2011

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

Error 500

As perl/wp/bot guru of gurus I wondered if you had seen this problem - and more importantly know of any solution or workaround. FemtoBot 6 updates some moderately large pages, but when it gets to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Recent changes talk and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Recent changes it almost always encounters an internal error 500. I can compress the pages a bit, or split them into transcluded sub-pages, but I'd rather not. Rich Farmbrough, 13:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

AnomieBOT gets 5xx errors often enough, 496 in December not counting "Can't connect" from LWP::UserAgent when my Internet connection was down. Most are "500 Server closed connection without sending any data back" (which is presumably generated inside LWP::UserAgent) or "504 Gateway Time-out", both of which AFAICT mean "the servers are taking too long to process the query"; it usually goes through later, and in the case of edits often enough it actually did go through the first time. I see very few "500 Internal Server Error"s.
It is true that very long pages like those will more often give errors, if MediaWiki takes too long to process the edit. Besides shortening the page somehow, I don't know anything to do. Anomie 17:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's interesting. "Manual" edits that return an error often have succeeded in updating the DB. I will investigate page shortening techniques... Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I'm afraid I need your help again - black boxes

I'm having this same problem with a file I just uploaded to Wikimedia Commons:

This time I converted each word with Object-to-Path, but the black boxes still show up. In my Inkscape file, there is nothing more I can select in order to convert. What exactly did you do to fix the other problem? Thanks. HowardMorland (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copied from the English Wikipedia Village Pump - The problem which you fixed (these files in English Wikipedia):

After trying, and failing, eight times to upload the following file


I gave up and uploaded the .png version of the file, no problem


What did I do wrong? I kept getting a black rectangle in the .svg file. It never showed up on my computer file; it was only on Wikipedia after I made the upload. HowardMorland (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason you shouldn't use DejaVu fonts in that image, instead of converting all text to paths. You should really download them. If you want to try seeing what MediaWiki will do to your SVGs, you could try downloading RSVG; if you need help finding that or getting it to work, the WP:Reference desk should be able to help.
As for the black boxes, it seems there is no way to really select those elements in Inkscape. The only way I can find to find them in Inkscape is to use the XML Editor (under the Edit menu, at least in the version I have here). You can look in the tree on the left for lines with "<svg:flowRoot" (you may have to open some of the "<svg:g" lines to find them) and delete them. Anomie 12:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I started over with a version of the file before it had any text. I then typed in all my text outside the margins of the image, unflowed each block of text, converted it to path, and then dragged it into the image. The successful result:
There must be an easier way. (I don't think the font is causing the black boxes; it's the flowroot. When I deleted the text and uploaded the image, the black boxes were still there, in the place where I had first typed the text. That's why I later typed the text outside the image.)
HowardMorland (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is the flowroot, RSVG (the program MediaWiki uses to convert SVGs to PNGs) doesn't seem to handle them right, or at least not in the same was as Inkscape. I have no idea why you're getting flowed text by default. Anomie 16:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently, if I open a text box in Inkscape, like I would in Paintbrush, the text is automatically flowed. I have to unflow each text object, before I convert it to path. However, if I just start typing at the cursor, with no box, the text is not flowed. This is what I have learned by trial and error, after many upload attempts.HowardMorland (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving templates

Further to your assistance at Village Pump yesterday, I understand that I need to change the name parameter as well as moving the template but how do I go back into the template to do that (i.e. as the edit you did yesterday). I have come across a previous template move I did which similarly needs updating. [1] Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go to the template page (click the "Template" tab at the top), which will automatically follow the redirect to the current name. Then use the "Edit" tab on that page to edit it. Anomie 16:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I was being a bit daft in forgetting the 'normal' edit tools been as the 'vde' options are still displayed. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagging WikiProject Dacia

Hi! We have list of categories that we compiled for WP:DAC. How can we use the WikiProjectTagger to tag the articles? Thanks!--Codrin.B (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please link to a discussion, probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dacia, where this list of categories was discussed and approved. Anomie 03:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will bring this to the discussion. Thanks!--Codrin.B (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for identifying the problem with the Commons logo that I asked about at WP:VP/T! Please see that section for my reply. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm trying to install Lupin/Anti-vandal tool, but im stuck. Could you help please? Someone65 (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I know nothing about that tool. Anomie 11:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple issues

|article= isn't used anymore. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're referring to this, I was just concerned with fixing the mess our bots made out of the onesource and POV parameters here. Anomie 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice. One of the many rare syntax errors that confuse bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Exemplar has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just a quick note to say thank you for AnomieBot's BRFA function. It makes lazy schmucks like me very happy. Good work! Tim1357 talk 03:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

link classifier

Hi. Just wanted to check if you've seen a spike in the use of your link classifier script the past week or so (is this type of data available)? I advertised the script on all Main Page- and Featured Article-related talk pages last week trying to improve our outbound links from articles. Just curious as to the results. Zunaid 14:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can check Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js for links from people's monobook.js or vector.js; that'll list anyone who kept the "Linkback: [[User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js]]" comment intact. You could also try searching for it. Maybe the stats at could tell you something too, although I'd guess that would count just direct views of the page (not the actual importScript used on an ongoing basis). Anomie 17:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for mediation concerning Exemplar, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [] 23:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Anomie bot

Ilove your ref fixing bot, can you arrange a date for me with the bot or something, cheers.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AnomieBOT 50 performing trial on NRHP articles

Hi, i see it is running, thanks! It looks great!

Question: i notice List of New Hampshire covered bridges that in this edit it properly added a dead link tag. That somehow adds display on page of Category:NRHP articles with dead external links which is currently a redlink category. Nonetheless the page now shows up in Category:All NRHP articles with dead external links the bluelink category which is what i was expecting. I don't see how that happens. Should the redlink display be fixed easily somehow?

I hope this can serve as discussion of the performance of the bot. Please advise where, if i should post elsewhere. --doncram 17:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) If you remove |cat-date=Category:NRHP articles with dead external links from {{NRIS dead link}} it will no longer put them in that category. –xenotalk 17:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MedBot and nominations oddity

[2] - Can you determine why it's repeatedly adding the nominations page to the nominations page? AGK [] 19:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because the nominations page was in its own category. Fixed Anomie 20:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The dispute about romanizations for katakana words of non-Japanese origin has now entered mediation and is currently being talked about in this discussion page section. If you still wish to participate, please join the discussion. Thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding Pavao Skalic dispute

Hi Anomie,

I know that all of you wikipedians are so, so smart (to smart for a common mortal)... but must say, I'm amased with your warm welcome and understanding of problem I've presented.

In fact, since now I know how smart and helpful you are, I'm shocked and ashamed... Don't worry, I will never bother you again!

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link classifier on my wiki

Do I add this importScriptURI(''); to add Linkclassifier to my userspace on my wiki and how can I install it for all users ? Thanx. Mlpearc powwow 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You would need the following:
Although to install it for all your users it might be better to make a local copy on your own wiki. Anomie 23:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anomie, thank you very much, this is a great tool. Why isn't this a Mediawiki gadget ? Mlpearc powwow 00:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because no one has bothered to propose it at WP:Gadgets? It should probably be rewritten to use jQuery instead of my own custom ajax code before that, anyway. Anomie 02:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


For me to stop writing perl in "edit" and "notepad". Would you recommend a perl IDE/workbench/editor? Rich Farmbrough, 04:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Can't help you there, I use vim. Anomie 11:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems feature rich enough for me! Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]


Quoted from User talk:Attilios:
The {{sic}} template is used to indicate that a misspelling or other error is intentional; you should generally not correct spelling errors marked with that template without knowing why the template was applied in the first place. I have reverted your change to ISO 3166-1; {{sic}} is used there because that article reflects the exact naming used by the ISO 3166/MA for each country, even if the name is not commonly considered correct. Anomie 16:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thank you! I didn't know this... Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You have mail on your bot's talkpage. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC) • Go Steelers!Reply[reply]

Recent video game bot request

At Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 40#Tagging files for WikiProject Video games, you ran a very helpful query to find all images used in articles which are part of Wikiproject Video Games. However, your query included both images that are directly linked in addition to as those that are transcluded from templates. Is there any way that you can re-run the query to return the images which are directly linked to articles, excluding images which are transcluded from templates? I'm currently making a request for the bot that will actually add the wikiproject tags to the files' talk pages, and it would drastically reduce the time and effort it takes the bot to complete this task if it didn't have to check each image individually for whether it's directly linked or not. If it's not practical to generate such a list, that's fine, I just thought I'd ask. If you want to respond at the bot request page, that's fine too. Thanks. SnottyWong express 18:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are only 60 local images that are present on a template transcluded into one or more WPVG articles.
List of images
Note that this won't catch things like {{portal|Nintendo}} including File:Nintendo.svg, although that image is at Commons and so isn't in either list. I suppose you could try asking someone with Toolserver access to run you a query for how many distinct il_froms each image from my earlier list has in the imagelinks table, and assume those with excessive totals are transcluded in some manner. HTH. Anomie 18:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the help. The list above helps, and I'll mess with it some more to see if any further scrutiny is required to eliminate the chances of tagging incorrect images. SnottyWong converse 22:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AnomieBot is thinking

Since AnomieBot has begun thinking and speaking for itself I am asking for it to be bloc.....END TRANSMISSION. - NeutralhomerTalk • 02:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not terribly helpful

I am in the middle of something and suddenly my work is wasted? Rich Farmbrough, 21:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

How so? Anomie 21:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My pre-scanned list starts rejecting items, hand crafted article improvements go undone, I may as well not have bothered. There's really little point replicating what I am doing, when there is so much else to be done. I do understand that for a gifted coder like yourself it may be effortless, but it still means we are both spending time on the same task - even if I'm using AWB you can shout me on my talk page and discuss this stuff. Makes more sense than going at cross purposes. Rich Farmbrough, 22:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Are you talking about that I noticed that Category:Incomplete lists wasn't in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month even though {{Expand list}} was changed to use {{DMCA}} on 6 October 2010? And then did some script-assisted editing to remove Category:Incomplete lists from a bunch of pages that had both the category and {{Expand list}}? Anomie 22:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You happened to notice the same day that I did? And start your script 10 minutes after I started AWBing to remove the category? Well coincidences do happen. Was this one of them? Rich Farmbrough, 01:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Not entirely a coincidence. Among other things, I have a report created from AnomieBOT's logs that lets me know when the bot couldn't find a template to date despite the page being in one of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month (e.g. a page transcludes a template with an undated maintenance template, or a maintenance template is missing from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates) and compares AnomieBOT's versus SmackBot's hourly tagging rates for my own edification. I had nothing better to do at about 16:30 UTC and ran the report, and saw a sudden jump in SmackBot's edit rates starting during 14:00 UTC. Special:Contributions/SmackBot was filled with tagging of {{Expand list}}. That's the part that was not entirely coincidence since I did notice the situation due to SmackBot's edits, although it was still coincidental that I happened to check AnomieBOT's report only 2.5 hours after SmackBot started dating {{Expand list}}.
I eventually determined that the reason AnomieBOT hadn't already tagged them was that Category:Incomplete lists wasn't in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. I observed that the change to {{Expand list}} happened in October 2010 and that SmackBot was dating them all with February 2011 rather than using a wikiblame-like process to find the "real" date, so I saw no harm in fixing that categorization immediately so AnomieBOT could help clear the backlog; that was at about 16:58 UTC. I have no idea why that made SmackBot stop editing for an hour or so. I later rechecked the report and found (not unexpectedly) that AnomieBOT was complaining about not finding any template to date in many articles left in Category:Incomplete lists, which I quickly determined was due to {{inc-up}} and to pages being directly placed in Category:Incomplete lists; in my spot checks to determine that, I noticed that the many "$Nationality films in $Year" articles had both the category and a redirect to {{Expand list}}, so I decided to throw together a quick script to let me quickly clean those up (that was probably around 18:50 UTC). I finished the script at about 19:14 UTC and started using it to clean things up, so if you started at about 19:04 UTC then that was the same degree of coincidence as how you found {{list-dev}} 37 minutes after I did and fixed it without noticing my {{editprotected}} on its talk page. Anomie 03:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I did surmise you were actively monitoring stuff - your bot is stalking mine? The number of explicit categories was unexpectedly high, and the number of undated items unexpectedly low, given comparisons where SmackBot has been dating templates proactivly (en passent) for years before they started categorising by month. 16:58 I expect, I updated SmackBot to build 607, which is some more sensible redirect handling I wrote on day 1 and never tested or ran, also some other stuff I forget. Having AnomieBot run has been good in that that I don't have to worry about timescales porting any of the template handling stuff (a set of regexes is very different from little bits of perl parsing), and I have a lot to do at the moment, but also frustrating, partly for the same reason, partly because there's never a significant amount of raw data available - SmackBot AWB for a long time ran every few days, only latterly becoming daily, since as long as it ran by month end everything was cool. I estimate about the low tens of percents of tags added don't need dating by month end, either they have been dealt with, dated by an AWB edit or replaced with a different tag, or removed. Rich Farmbrough, 09:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]


Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png
The da Vinci Barnstar is awarded to editors who have "enhanced Wikipedia through their technical work". For writing a new version of User:MediationBot so promptly and without error, and for continuing to provide your excellent bots to the English Wikipedia, I award Anomie and all the User:AnomieBOTs the da Vinci Barnstar. Thank you! For the Mediation Committee, AGK [] 14:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MedCom laurel.png
Thank you! Anomie 02:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trial edits done

My bot, User:AudeBot, sent out meetup (for Tuesday) invites for 15 users, doing the 15 trial edits. All went well, and would like to send out invites to everyone else on our invite list soon as possible. Thanks and thanks for pinging me. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Anomie. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeltaQuadBot 4.
Message added 19:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

All up and ready now as requested. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your signature

There's a unicode in your signature that I can't read. If you know what font said unicode came out of, would you please tell me what it so that I can download it and see your unicode properly? Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 02:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine, don't answer. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, busy. There isn't really a particular font, although you could try installing DejaVu. Anomie 04:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bingo, that did the trick. Thanks a ton. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Romanian diacritics

Hi, regarding fixing Romanian diacritics (which I see you worked on before), could you please take a look at this discussion and advise on whether there's anything your bot could do to help? Thanks,--Kotniski (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Knees in tetrapods

Pigeon skeleton

I see you twice has put in a "dubious" tag in the Tetrapod article. While the statement you have tagged should be sourced, the reason you cite for it being dubious is wrong. Knees in birds do not bend backwards. The joint with the "backward" bend is the ankle joint. The knee proper is further up, hidden below the wings. See for instance the accompanying picture of a pigeon skeleton. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are confused. I did not edit that article at all. My bot, AnomieBOT, did not add any tag. All it did was add a date to the tag that was added in this edit by Kjellmikal (talk · contribs), so the page would be categorized in Category:Articles with disputed statements from March 2011 instead of Category:Articles with disputed statements. And for what it's worth, I agree that it's not at all dubious; birds walk digitigrade, as do cats, dogs, and many other animals. Anomie 13:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Some say source requirements for ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to WP:BLP living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.

We're on the 6th day. Traditionally, these polls go for 7; unless there's no obvious consensus, when we go for an additional 7 days.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


for fixing my subst mistake in the 4G article. Mange01 (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. Anomie 11:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just wanted to thank you for creating the bot. :D It saved me a lot of work on some pages and I really appreciate that. :D --LauraHale (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot pending approval

Can you please give a look in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 20? I finished test edits more than 3 weeks ago. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you put more details about the scripts on the page? I'm not exactly sure what User:Anomie/reftooltip.js or User:Anomie/useridentifier.js does...and a few more. Thanks, CTJF83 19:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


For fixing my citation error - I checked my log and saw your note and the link. Much appreciated - will work hard to improve my editing!

Dikonped (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you

Thank You for your contribs to Amarillo citizens against Repent Amarillo's page.willis4play (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AnomieBOT BAG list parsing

Hi! Just to be sure, I am hoping this edit by me that added another heading row into the table doesn't break the bot? Thanks. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It did, the bot didn't like the "!" inside the comment. Fixed. Anomie 13:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, thanks. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Anomie, hope you're well. In order to group mediation bot issues together at WT:MC, could you change the bot code so that, where it presently reports issues to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee, it instead adds them to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Bot issues? Thanks, AGK [] 17:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That should theoretically do it. Anomie 00:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AnomieBOT down

I appears AnomieBOT is down. Thanks for your time. MBisanz talk 06:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Back up now. Anomie 10:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OnThisDayTagger seems overly enthusiastic

Hey, cf. this edit.

On May 20 the main page's “On This Day” section looked like this. i.e., as far as I can tell, it does not in fact feature Shakespeare's sonnets. It does however list that article as "Eligible" in the "staging area" that is noinclude-ed. At a wild and superficial guess the bot is looking for list entries anywhere in the page, rather than ignoring sections within noinclude tags; so the fix is probably to start paying attention to noinclude and includeonly tags (iirc the MediaWiki parser for this is pretty simplistic so this shouldn't need too much fancy coding).

(PS. Watchlisting this page for a while, but not the bot's talk page, so ping on my Talk if you need my attention elsewhere or much later). --Xover (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, somebody changed how those pages work. Turns out I already had code in there to remove noincluded content, but a small bug made it fail if the content spanned more than one line. Fixed. Anomie 13:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. --Xover (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image appropriation =

Hi Anomie. Just noticed that my image [3] has been replaced by a virtually identical image [4] and credited as "self-made" by Anomie. This seems a little out of order. Please give a reason for this, otherwise I will revert. Bobathon (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An SVG image renders without artifacts at any size, and is generally preferred for line drawings. I listed it as "self-made" because I made it myself by plotting out points and connecting lines. Anomie 22:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You made it by copying precisely the image I made, replaced it without attribution (despite the attribution license) and credited yourself. Surely that is not good practice. I've modified the Source line on the image.
Thank you for replacing the image with an SVG version. I was not aware that this was necessary. Bobathon (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to run AnomieBOT manually?

Hello. May I ask how (or if it's possible) to run AnomieBOT manually? I ask this because I've found some page with OrphanedRef which was orphaned for almost six months: [5] And I think there're others like this. If I can't, may I ask how often does AnomieBOT run? Thanks. --Korrawit (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AnomieBOT runs more or less continuously. Sometimes, however, it just cannot find the text for an orphaned reference that someone added. Anomie 20:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot down again

Sorry to bug you, but he's down again. MBisanz talk 12:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It'll have to wait a few more hours until I get home to see why the Internet connection is down. Anomie 18:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usurpation held up

I see that the bot is broken, but please, can I do the clerking manually, or can someone else do it? Thanks, and have a nice day. --Jeffwang16 (Talk) (Contributions) (Email me!) 21:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot should be functional now, for the moment anyway. Anomie 23:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Error by AnomieBOT

See [6]. I have no idea whether this is a common problem or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied there. Anomie 15:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Live preview

Hello Anomie, around the time the Wikimedia software was updated in February live preview stopped working. I thought it might have been broken by the update, but yesterday I noticed it still worked on Wikimedia Commons, so I tried disabling my scripts on Wikipedia one by one and found out the problem was with Twinkle/Friendly. For some reason when Twinkle/Friendly is installed Live Preview isn't working. Any thoughts on what might be causing it? Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 22:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm confused. I see you had one of my scripts installed in your monobook.js for about 6 minutes earlier, and not at all before that this year. Your Commons account commons:User:Alpha Quadrant doesn't seem to have any scripts installed. Anomie 11:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's "snarky" about this?

Can you please explain why it is "snarky"?--The wikifyer's corner 20:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediationBot notifications quirk

Hi Anomie, I hope you're well. MediationBot seems to be messing up the notifications that it sends out to parties to newly-filed requests - as with [7]. In that notification, it replaced the hidden content line with the case page name, but it did not replace the other instances of "Example" with the case name. I don't know if this is a problem with User:MediationBot/Opened message, User:MediationBot/Accepted message, and User:MediationBot/Rejected message - all of which I recently updated, as part of a harmonisation of MedCom's template pages. Could you fix this when you get a moment, and then try to get the bot to correctly notify the parties to the Milton RFM? Thanks, AGK [] 13:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like you figured it out already. Anomie 03:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that was my bad; sorry about that. I don't know how to kick MedBot into re-notifying all the parties, though. I tried removing the hidden message and then the entire messagebox from Colbyhawkins's talk page as a test, but it didn't re-notify him? AGK [] 18:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AnomieBOT at ITN

Hello! When you get a moment, can you take a look at this thread regarding a possible expansion of your bot's functions at ITN. Would the proposed functions be feasible? Regards, Nightw 16:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we're ready now...? Nightw 05:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link classifier removes underlines on links.

*<u>[[Link]]</u> → No underline
*[[Link|<u>Link</u>]] --> Works
*<u> foobar [[Link]]</u> --> Doesn't work
  • Link → No underline
  • Link → Works
  • foobar Link → Doesn't Work

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't really have anything to do with the link classifier, it seems that's just what happens when an element with a background color is inside <u>...</u> tags in standards mode. For example, foobar. BTW, your third example doesn't "work" for me. Anomie 07:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any solutions? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was good

I thought that was very good. I had a great laugh, so you get a gold star. Gold Star.svg Best regards. - Hydroxonium (TCV) 08:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I'm glad to know someone appreciated my attempt at humor. Anomie 13:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, per this thread, I would like to remove the "Requests to add a task to an already-approved bot" heading from the BRFA page, however I'm guessing that doing so would probably break how AnomieBOT parses the page? --Chris 03:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it would. I'll update the bot and make the change to WP:BRFA in a little bit. Anomie 13:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done That should do it. Anomie 14:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! --Chris 08:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A comment about you and BAG

... can be found here. Please discuss there, not here, should you desire discussion. Thanks. -- (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AN/I Accusing IPs of sock puppetry

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose bot task to notify if new bots are editing before trial

Hi! Since AnomieBOT is doing most BAG/BRFA tasks, I'm wondering if you would be willing to implement a task to notify if new bots are editing before trial. Essentially, if someone makes a new BRFA for a new account and their bot starts editing outside userspace before {{BotTrial}}, AnomieBOT would pop down a notification message at the BRFA so we can react accordingly. There's no need for this to be instant, and once/twice a day is possibly enough. What do you think? Thanks for considering. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BRFA filed Anomie 18:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible vandalism

I have noticed User:Carstensen (talk | contribs) making numerous nuisance edits.

For example, at Vitamin B12 - he added cn for a sentence about Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin. When I went to her page, I discovered that she received the Nobel Prize for that work.

A) Information of that type generally does not need a citation.
B) There was already an acceptable link.

From there, I discovered two additional cn tags at Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin.

Looking at his contributions, most of his other recent edits are also simply to add cn tags. Such as Marie Curie, Linus Pauling (a clarify tag), and Stanford Moore.

By the way, none of those have edit summaries.

In my opinion, the cn tag should be used if someone finds a problem they are not able to fix. This user appears to be searching for places to add tags with no intent to try and fix any of them. Instead, this person is simply trying to get others to do something for him (or her).

It is my opinion that these edits are simply a form of vandalism since they serve no useful purpose. My question is - Am I wrong? or Where should I report this type of problem? (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents seems like over kill.) At any rate, I have gone ahead and removed some of these.

Perhaps I am suggesting that it makes more sense for the bot to remove these tags than it does to "fix them up". Q Science (talkcontribs) 06:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:V: pretty much everything needs an inline citation "if challenged", no matter how 'obvious' it might seem to be. And "drive-by tagging" like this is unfortunately considered by many to be completely acceptable behavior; many who do or support the practice hide behind WP:BURDEN to justify not doing a thing to even try to solve the perceived problem themselves rather than just slapping a tag on the article. While it is possible that someone could be considered disruptive by adding numerous {{citation needed}} tags, it's a very high bar that has to be surmounted to avoid being laughed out of WP:ANI or other fora.
For the bot to be able to remove these tags, it would somehow have to know that they were the result of drive-by tagging and the community would have to support removal of tags added in a drive-by manner. Neither of which is likely to happen any time soon. Anomie 12:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, an inline wikilink should count. I would also support a statement in one of the online guides *defining* "drive-by tagging" as disruptive. (Also, drive-by article renaming, WP:AWB, and several other "drive-by" actions. Your bot is one of the few that does NOT cause problems, AFAIK.) At any rate, thanks for listening. Q Science (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Good luck if you try to make any of that actually happen. Anomie 01:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You must have... but I'm asking as I don't know

...whether you've ever considered being an administrator. Wifione Message 18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're not the first to ask me that. For a good while I didn't want to be an admin. I eventually changed my mind to where I wouldn't mind being an admin, but besides not needing {{editprotected}}, protecting pages like User:AnomieBOT/CHUUClerk closer opt-in, and maybe blocking a rogue bot or occasional vandal I wouldn't have a whole lot of use for it. And from what I gather I wouldn't pass RfA these days if I did try, because I don't do anti-vandal patrol, I don't hang out at AFD, I've only done major content work on 2 or 3 articles, I wouldn't plan on getting involved in any particular area requiring admin tools, and so on. Anomie 18:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Then may I go ahead and nom you and ask Xeno to co-nom you? Only if you're ok with it... Wifione Message 05:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If you feel that strongly about it, I am honored and would accept the nomination. Anomie 11:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Amazing. Let me nudge Xeno out of his elephantine sleep and work up a nom. Thanks for the reply. Wifione Message 15:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Fyi. Wifione Message 04:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Any progress on this yet? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Wifione is planning to post it on Saturday morning, although I'm not sure what time zone's "morning" will be used. I don't know if he/she has been in contact with Xeno or not. Anomie 15:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Okay fine, just checking it hasn't been forgotten. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • Nom and co-nom are done, so - if there are no more co-nominations to be added - I would suggest transcluding it at a time when you have at least several hours to be around to field incoming questions (as they do tend to be somewhat top-heavy). –xenotalk 20:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • Finally! I was waiting for this as well. I'd offer a co-co-nom if you want it but I'm equally happy "just" to support =) Regards SoWhy 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                    • I appreciate the support, but I think I'll have to respectfully decline the offer of a co-co-nom. It seems that some people complain about having too many co-noms, for some strange reason.
                      FYI, everyone, look for transclusion on 2011-09-24, probably at around 12:00 or 13:00 UTC. Anomie 23:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                      • I assumed as much, so no hard feelings. =) Regards SoWhy 08:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought about asking the same question once, but then I spotted your userpage (before this change) so didn't bother. I've watchlisted the RfA. When you pass, could you please help me out at CAT:EP occasionally? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will. Anomie 10:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relish the next few days while they last ... once you become an admin, life begins to get really boring. People want us to do everything. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it's up, everyone! Anomie 12:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's going to be a close thing, but I think it may just be successful :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VP thread on AnomieBOT

Hi! AnomieBOT has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Acting without consensus, but I see you haven't been notified, so dropping you a note. Cheers! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Anomie 10:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Many editors concerned with the quality and improvement of RfA as a process for selecting new admins are of the opinion that a reduction in drama at RfA is a necessary priority. Some users regularly pose questions that may be considered to be inappropriate and disruptive to the process. General consensus appears to be that by leaving such questions unanswered, the trolling, and the drama it often engenders may stop. There is no official policy at all as to whether questions must be answered or whether they can be left unanswered; it is entirely up to the candidate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed this from your RfA and wondered if you might have any idea who or what was behind (talk · contribs · count · block log), as it has nearly 2000 edits spanning several months. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea, although I did discover number of IPs while checking pages in Category:Ukrainian footballers and Category:Paraguayan footballers for edits with similar edit summaries. I'm sure we'd find more scanning other "$Nationality footballers" categories. Results from those two categories are:
Anomie 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

High-risk images

Hello Anomie. You left a message on my talk page. I have moved that discussion to Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#High-risk images and written a long response there, since I have now figured out what could be done about it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Request for Adminship

Dear Anomie, I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and the items on the Administrators' reading list. Feel free to contact me if you need anything, and good luck. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations! I couldn't have wished for a better gift for my three-year admin anniversary than seeing you get the mop Face-wink.svg Regards SoWhy 13:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Beat the co-nom congratulations! This has been one of the most spectacular RfAs I have had the honor of being involved in. Thanks for accepting to be an administrator. Congratulations and best always :) Wifione Message 14:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well done! Makes a mockery of all those oppose !votes. Welcome to the club of most hated Wikipedians ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congrats on obtaining your mop! mc10 (t/c) 17:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mop? Nonsense .. I suggest some sort of Roomba-esque device is far more appropriate for Anomie. - TB (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha, thanks! I'll have to remember that for when I get an idea for an adminbot. Anomie 23:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congrats Anomie !!! —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 22:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Anomie 23:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I knew you'd sail thru. I shoulda just iar-sopped you ;> –xenotalk 15:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now that would probably have caused some drama! Anomie 16:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My favorite quote

The admins' T-shirt.

And from what I gather I wouldn't pass RfA these days if I did try - Anomie, 12 September 2011

You knew that was coming back to haunt you... didn't you? Anyhoo, congratulations on a strong showing. Now do us proud and go block Jimbo. Face-smile.svg - Hydroxonium (TCV) 22:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I'm allowed to be wrong once per year! ;) I'll pass on blocking Jimbo though, unless he decides to go on a vandalism spree or something. Anomie 23:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well done and good luck with the mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 10:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Anomie 11:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to say congratulations and welcome to the club. Long time coming. Best regards for the future. Khukri 08:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Anomie 10:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Anomie. The bot we have at MedCab at present works OK, but performs rather basic functions, and I was wondering if you could write us a new bot. If you think it might be possible, let me know and I'll give you the details. Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can certainly take a look. Anomie 12:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. I've created a list of tasks the bot would need to do, and will post it here. If you need any further details just let me know.
  • Each 30 minutes, the bot would check Category:Wikipedia Medcab new cases for any new cases that have been filed. If any are in the category, it will add them to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases under the "New cases requiring mediators" section.
  • Once a case is accepted by a mediator, it will move the case from the new cases section to the Active cases section at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases, listing the case name, the mediator, as well as the date the case was opened (i.e. [[02 October 2011/Holodomor]] - Mediator: Steven Zhang, opened 2 October 2011. It would also use the list of parties at the Who is involved section like this to notify them that the case has been opened, using {{Medcab participant}}. I've written a documentation page for it.
  • Each day, the bot will check the active cases list and see if the case has not been edited by anyone in one week. If it hasn't, the bot will change the case status to from active to inactive as well as place {{Inactivecase}} on the top of the case page, as well as move it to the inactive section on MedCab/Cases along with the date the case was last edited. It will also send a note to all the parties using {{Medcab case update}}.
  • Each day, the bot will check the inactive cases and see if any have not been edited in three weeks. If it hasn't, the case will be moved to "Pending closure", as well as the case status being changed to "Closing" and notifying of this pending close on the MedCab talk page. One month after inactivity, it will be closed by the bot, and removed fro MedCab/Cases.
  • Each day, the bot will see if any of the cases in inactive or pending close have been edited in the last month, if they have, it will be moved back to active. An exception will be needed if it is marked as pending closure by someone other than the bot.

Does this all make sense? Let me know if you need me to clarify. Thanks heaps. :) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also not created the bot (User:MedCabBot) as I figure you'll need control of the account. Best, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 04:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to bug you about this, but at present our current bot isn't working as it should. Due to the changes we have made it doesn't know where to put new or open cases. It has to be done manually. If it's too much hassle let me know, I can contact another bot operator as I realise you are quite busy. The more complex features can be implemented later but we do need a bot to list new cases relatively soon. Thanks again, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 12:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, let me see if I have this straight. As far as Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases goes:
As for managing unclosed cases:
The bot will apply the "managing unclosed cases" rules first, and then update Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases from the categories listed. For simplicity, it will probably just do everything every 30 minutes instead of leaving half of it for once per day. The bot should run under the account User:MedCabBot, not User:AnomieBOT. Does that all sound about right? Anomie 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just about. Cases that are moved to inactive should have the {{Medcab case update}} spammed to the mediator's talk page too. Also, we won't use another status "inactive pending close", just use the "Closing" status (whether a case is put as closing by a mediator or by the bot will be determined with the comments field) Also, there's a comments field in the {{Medcabstatus}} template, so if the bot marks it as inactive or closing, it should update the comments section with something like "No users have edited this case in one week, if it is not edited within the next month it will be closed", "no users have edited this case in three weeks, if the case doesn't become active within a week it will be closed". You get the general idea. With the dates, it's just about right, but when a case goes inactive the last edited date will be included as well as the opening date, e.g. [[case link]] − Mediator: [[User:Example]], opened 1 October 2011, inactive since 7 October 2011". Lastly, let's call it User:MedcabBot. Looks better :) But yeah, it should run under it's own account. Thanks again :) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 19:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BRFA filed Anomie 04:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More congratulations

Congratulations on attaining adminship... I know that you will do an awesome job! Lots of luck, Moogwrench (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Anomie 12:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLP edit notice problem

Mary Rose albury botanical gardens.jpg Thank You!
For helping to fix that issue with the BLP edit notice. It really will be a great help in pushing the BLP problem in the right direction. And congratulations on your recent adminship - obviously well deserved. First Light (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome, and thanks! Anomie 16:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for implementing my change to {{Geobox}}. And congratulations on your triumphant RfA. You are braver than I am. —Stepheng3 (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks. My RfA was actually less trouble than I thought it would be, except for the drama with Keepscases's question and oppose. I don't know whether my RfA was in any way typical or atypical, though. Anomie 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drama seems to be inherent in the process. Enjoy those tools; you've earned them! —Stepheng3 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Camera-photo.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Camera-photo.svg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took care of this.
--David Göthberg (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought I checked every image uploaded for that problem, must have missed one somehow. Thanks. Anomie 10:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Hi Anomie. File:Image-request.svg is one of the high-risk images you uploaded locally today. But for some reason it refuses to render. (I know it's not your fault.) The filename above actually is a thumbnail but as you can see it doesn't render. And the blue image currently shown on the image page is what MediaWiki shows when it fails to render an image. It also doesn't render its old versions as listed on the image page.

I have tried several ways to purge the image, see Wikipedia:Purge#For images, and even tried to delete it and restore it, but it still doesn't render. When I deleted it it did render the Commons version, but when I restored it locally it again did not render. MediaWiki states that the filedata is the same for the local and the Commons versions, and I have manually checked that. I don't know what more we can do to make that image render. Do you have any ideas? Or should we ask at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)?

--David Göthberg (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now checked all the other images you uploaded, and File:Icon - upload photo.svg seems to have the same problem.
--David Göthberg (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I purged the Commons versions, they both stopped rendering too. Anomie 10:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For both of them, it turned out the file didn't explicitly specify xmlns="" on the <svg> tag; I guess older versions of MediaWiki and/or rsvg assumed that when no xmlns was specified, but at some point they stopped. Oddly enough, the version of rsvg I have on my machine here likes the broken versions fine. Anomie 11:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, of course. My Firefox refused to render the image when I loaded the whole image, but I didn't realise what that meant. Now, if I understand this right it probably means that thousands of old images won't render in new sizes that haven't been previously cached. (But at the image page all seems normal since there the image has been cached long ago.) This is a sneaky bug so people probably have a hard time to figure out what is going on.
I did a search for "xmlns" and saw that people have been fixing this problem for years both here at enwp and at Commons. I also did a search at Bugzilla and only found some related bugs, but no discussion of exactly this problem. (According to bugzilla:27537 MediaWiki reports an error when uploading svg images without that header, but that doesn't seem true any more since you could upload that image.)
It seems this is a global problem that needs handling in some way. Either by an update to MediaWiki so it handles it better. Or a bot (or a search in an off-line copy of the image database or so) finding and reporting or fixing all such images. So we should probably discuss this with people at Commons and report it at Bugzilla.
--David Göthberg (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like T29544 deals with the broken images issue; in summary, the broken rendering is the intended behavior and the proper solution is to fix all the broken files. T15196 seems to be the one dealing with looking through all existing svgs for invalid ones. No idea why I was able to upload the broken files, if I remember later I'll hop on IRC and ask if any devs have a clue (anyone feel free to remind me at about 00:00 UTC). Anomie 17:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asked on IRC, but no answer yet. Anomie 03:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah good, so the developers are aware of this. (Mostly leaving this message so you know I have seen your comments.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Local files

Hello, Anomie curiosity question, what is your reasoning for uploading these files locally ? ie. File:Symbol support vote.svg, File:Purple question mark.svg and so on... I'm probably brain dead, I'm sure you have a good reason but I just don't see it :P Mlpearc powwow 15:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason is specified in the {{Keep local high-risk}} template. –xenotalk 15:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#High-risk images, in particular the posts by David Göthberg. In short (and liberally paraphrasing from David),
  • Images referenced from CSS (e.g. using background:url(...)) will break if a local copy is in use and is then deleted by a well-meaning admin applying F8.
  • We cannot necessarily trust Commons to protect these images or to keep them protected. This leaves us open to vandalism by someone uploading a new image to Commons; this is particularly concerning for images used widely or used in interface messages.
  • We cannot necessarily trust Commons admins to not move or edit the images, even if they are protected, causing breakage in our interface messages or widely-used templates.
All of these have happened repeatedly in the past. Consensus seems to have been for a while that these sorts of images should be uploaded and protected locally. Anomie 15:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop maintenance


Hi,Anomie,please stop your maintenance again and again,you do not know Urdu language,I know,that's why I had removed templete [cn].In reference,on the Urdu book title has the name which is mentioned in the article,but it is not correctly translated into English,it is very common in those part of the world,different spelling,or not complete spelling.According to Urdu book title,translation is this,"Pir-e-Kamil pbuh".Please revert your maitenance yourself or give reasons to not doing,I wait, otherwise I will do it.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you are very confused. I have never edited the article Pir-e-Kamil. My bot, AnomieBOT, has edited that article recently, but only to add the current month and year to a {{fact}} tag that someone else inserted. AnomieBOT did not insert the {{fact}} tag itself. You should discuss the issue with instead. Anomie 18:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes I was confused,ok,I am going to remove it,This IP is causing rv.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass null edit request

Can you go through Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates and null edit all media there? I can't do so because it is protected. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose when I uploaded those images (including the protection template) then it added it to the category, and when I protected them a second or two later it didn't update the category, huh?  Done Anomie 20:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you bring a copy of this file up to Wikipedia-EN? It's never been vandalized or drastically changed, or been under threat of deletion, so to say it's at "high-risk" is rather silly, if you don't mind me saying. Fry1989 eh? 19:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#High-risk images, in particular the posts by David Göthberg. In short (and liberally paraphrasing from David),
  • Images referenced from CSS (e.g. using background:url(...)) will break if a local copy is in use and is then deleted by a well-meaning admin applying F8.
  • We cannot necessarily trust Commons to protect these images or to keep them protected. This leaves us open to vandalism by someone uploading a new image to Commons; this is particularly concerning for images used widely or used in interface messages.
  • We cannot necessarily trust Commons admins to not move or edit the images, even if they are protected, causing breakage in our interface messages or widely-used templates.
All of these have happened repeatedly in the past. Consensus seems to have been for a while that these sorts of images should be uploaded and protected locally. Anomie 15:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But then what are we to do if a file on Commons needs to be updated. How are we to reflect this update on the local version as well? Fry1989 eh? 20:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upload the new version locally, or submit an {{editprotected}} request if you're not an admin. How many of these images are likely to ever need updates, though? Anomie 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably not many. It's just a concern. Fry1989 eh? 20:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fry1989: The number of images we protect like this is not that many, so handling them is not much of a problem. Your image is used on 75,166 pages, which makes it the 74th most used image here at Wikipedia. And it is not protected on Commons. If we don't have a protected copy of it here locally then any vandal can upload a rude picture in its place which would immediately be visible on 75,166 pages. Such vandalisation happens more often than you might think, and the rude pictures they use are often very large and very nasty...
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to New Orleans developers' meeting

New Orleans Wikimedia Hackathon
MediaWiki and Wikimedia developers' meetup
Hi, Anomie/Archives. I'd like to invite you to come to the New Orleans Hackathon 2011. We're getting together folks like you -- template, script, tool, extension, and gadget writers -- to participate, give feedback, test, and hack with us.

At the event, MediaWiki developers and Wikimedia operations engineers will be working on Wikimedia's gadgets/extensions/tools support, authorization/authentication strategy, dev-ops virtualization, and general training and hacking. And we'll improve and discuss the Wikimedia Labs projects infrastructure and other stuff that makes it easier for anyone to supercharge Wikimedia with awesomeness.

The event is open to anyone who wants to come and contribute, and is an opportunity to spend time with senior MediaWiki developers & ops engineers, write beautiful code, and learn about the latest developments. We'll write code together, discuss the software, and hold little workshops.

If you can make it to New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 14-16 October 2011, we'd love to have you. Please add your name to the attendees list. Thanks! Sumanah (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) (Volunteer Development Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation)Reply[reply]

Sumanah (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly, I cannot make it. Anomie 19:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


FYI: Your great script does not work with names references invoked with {{r}}. See Arthur Rudolph for example. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I know. AnomieBOT doesn't support it either when rescuing orphaned references. Especially since it includes the functionality of the IMO extremely awful {{rp}} template, I don't really have any desire to support it.
What I really need to do is rewrite Cite.php to fix some of these problems, so {{rp}} is not necessary; the hard part is figuring out a sane wikitext syntax. Anomie 01:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism of Bill Byrne

There are still some people at it... maybe full protect (no edits allowed) would be a good idea. This vandalism is in response to a disagreement over a football rivalry. It should blow over by the weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txaggie2011 (talkcontribs) 03:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears that the accounts that were doing the vandalism are all unregistered editors or accounts newly registered for the purpose. In general, Wikipedia policy prefers semi-protection rather than full protection in this sort of case. So far no one has edited since I protected it, so we'll see if that takes care of the problem. Anomie 03:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Choco chip cookie.png Thanks for catching the licensing issue at {{Infobox mountain}}! I didn't notice that at all. —hike395 (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yum! Anomie 15:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot malfunction

Your bot appears to be edit warring with MiszaBot over a line break [8]. You may want to look into that. Monty845 16:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, bot stopped for now. Anomie 16:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allowusertalk issue

Thread retitled from "Easyblock.js".

If you have a spare moment, perhaps you could attend to Wikipedia:VPT#Problems with User:Animum/easyblock.js? (It's a high-priority problem and Animum seems to be on a bit of a break). –xenotalk 18:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied there. Anomie 20:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for fixing the code. Do you think you might be able to work out a script to allow the talk page access of everyone who should have it? –xenotalk 22:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm... The hard part is finding everyone who should have it. I'll see what I can come up with. Anomie 22:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure that ProcseeBot should have been revoking talk page - post fix it isn't any longer [9]. But the rest - maybe cross reference people who have easyblock.js in their .js pages? =] –xenotalk 22:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoo, there are 1602 blocks by TorNodeBot and 7665 by ProcseeBot since October 5 that have talk page access disabled. I'll see about scripting those. I've listed the "manual" blocks with talk page access disabled at User:Anomie/Sandbox8, but note there are 43 that I don't seem to have access to the actual blocked username. Anomie 23:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My word. Well, here's your chance to juice up your log actions ;p –xenotalk 23:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Filter blocks expiring in less than 12 hours? –xenotalk 23:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The autoblocks expire after 24 hours but you could probably just mass clear the autoblocks, as they would get re-imposed as needed. –xenotalk 23:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Starting on the TorNodeBot and ProcseeBot blocks, per WP:IAR. Just so anyone watching knows. Anomie 23:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this. Reproducing the reason on the nonbot blocks would be good. –xenotalk 00:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think I'll be able to script the manual blocks, each one probably needs looking into to see if it really deserves talk page access revoked or not. Anomie 00:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sort by admin; a few have large batches that shouldn't. Could ping em all to take a look themselves. –xenotalk 00:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Admins notified. And I finished the TorNodeBot and ProcseeBot blocks, too. There was a slight hitch in that srv256 somehow didn't get the fix right away, but I got Roan on IRC to give it a kick. Anomie 02:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I reviewed the mentioned blocks and talk page access disabling, and I believe that my actions were done in accordance with the Wikipedia policies. I don't use scripts and I don't have monobook. I do everything manually. Please, let me know if I missed something important, I'll try to fix any error that I've made. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The check was purely for technical issues, not policy: scripts or bots that were supposed to be blocking with talk page access enabled were accidentally blocking with talk page access disabled instead. If you only use Special:Block to block then you should be fine. Thanks for checking! Anomie 11:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, when I try to edit wikipedia I get """You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, move, or create them.

Editing from has been disabled by Anomie for the following reason(s): Reblock to allow talk page access (cleaning up after bug 31679) This block has been set to expire: 07:38, 24 October 2011. """

I am running a tor exit node so I assume this is what the block is for, but that doesn't fit your log message. If you have a free sec, could you explain this to me please at nick[at] I'm writing this through a proxy and don't particularly care to make a wikipedia account just to keep tabs on this, I'm just curious what got me banned--if it was tor or something else so I can decide if I care. Thanks a lot! Have a barnyardilicious good day. (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that is what the block is for. I apologize for the lack of clarity in the log message. If you prevent access from your TOR exit node to Wikipedia, you should be successful in requesting an unblock. Anomie 11:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you ride herd on this dude?

Anomie, please see this B.S. and this thread on my talk page. Someone needs to do something about well-meaning trolls who don’t know what they are doing and go badger people who had the misfortune of contributing to the project in the early days when uploading pictures wasn’t the thoroughly perfect, understandable, exceedingly clear process it is today. Greg L (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. The only people who should be running about raising issues with multiple users as to whether the copyright tag notices and disclaimers and caveats and footnotes all properly have their i's dotted and t's crossed are those who have been vetted and approved by a single place (committee or group) on Wikipedia or Commons. We can’t have individuals running off half-cocked, wasting many others’ time over a complete abortion like this. Greg L (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this particular case, it seems that Magog the Ogre is correct. The image is sourced to Pacific Northwest National Lab, which is operated by a private company under contract from the DOE. Since they are not directly employees of the DOE, they can (and do) hold copyright in their work (see [10] for more on that topic). Unless you can find some indication that that particular picture was released under terms more favorable than those listed at [11] (or contact them and get it released under more favorable terms), a fair use rationale is necessary. The upload was just as wrong 4 years ago as it is now, it just took 4 years for someone to notice the problem. Anomie 19:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I modified an existing file that had that particular free-use tag and so I re-used that tag, thinking it was appropriate and correct. Garbage in - garbage out. It would be nice if he would have explained something for the basis of his objection. Nowhere (small white text on a white background?) on my talk page thread nor the image file page, nor the image file page did he provide any explanation of what you just described. Am I expected to be a mind reader? Perhaps he just wanted to *ping* and chat. I deleted the picture from the only article I give a crap about (“Kilogram”, ∆ edit here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg L (talkcontribs) 22:19, 20 October 2011‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
For sorting out and fixing the use of cascade-protection on Wikipedia, I award you with a barnstar! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Anomie 14:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I'm experiencing communication issues with this bo'ts handlers. The last few times we used this bot to deliver messages, it took several days - to the point of the messages being obsolete before they were finally sent. Currently, the bot handlers either do not respond to talk pages messages, or just provide obtuse answers. Is there any way I can obtain reasonable assurance that a message I need to send today or tomorrow will be promptly carried out? if not, coupd you please let me know of another mass message delivery system. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really know anything about that bot, I just helped EdoDodo clean up the code during the BRFA. If you want to use a different bot, you could always try Category:Newsletter delivery bots or just ask at WP:BOTREQ. Anomie 01:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you!

Vitruvian Barnstar.png The da Vinci Barnstar
For making a lot of very nifty scrips that make editing Wikipedia easier. Keep up the good work! The Bushranger One ping only 02:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, and you're welcome! Anomie 02:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

google redirect links

Hi Anomie, thanks for picking this up. Two questions:

  • There may be links that are actually to blacklisted links - could you post a list of those pages where that is the case (the bot will likely fail to save)? Most of those will have been added in good faith, but it might be good to find who added the links and check the situation there.
  • Do you take care of and all other google stuff as well per Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Google_redirection_URLs (there may be even more)?

Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will construct that list once the bot finishes. OTOH, unless they make you remove the blacklist entry for Google then the list will be "anything linking to these Google redirection URLs".
Of course AnomieBOT will take care of all those other domains. I posted the list, after all. Anomie 10:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I did not notice that you were the listposter.
I think it is whitelisted now, but you're right, the ones that are left are going to be the ones which are to blacklisted domains. In fact, the search now has a number which are to blacklisted links: (locally blacklisted) and (globally blacklisted) - both were added way before blacklisting even existed, so no abuse in it, and no harm in them staying.
Most of the links seem good-faith mistakes, and blacklisting may be harsh for it. On the other hand, I've seen spammers spam redirect sites before getting to their own site, in the hope that that would not attract the attention. I am afraid it is a loose-loose situation :-(.
Thanks for the good work! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bot will now start posting any problem pages it finds at User:AnomieBOT/ReplaceExternalLinks4 problems. Anomie 18:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for acting promptly on my edit request for {{Infobox NRHP}}. —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible new bot task

I am looking for someone to help or potentially completely take over a bot task. My bot, SporkBot, rotates the log pages and creates a new log page at WP:Templates for discussion. Basically, the log rotation looks like this, and the new page creation looks like this. I could send you my code, which is written in Perl using the MediaWikiBot library. But, since the task is fairly simple, you could probably write one yourself in the language of your choice. I am moving to a new house in a few days, and I won't have reliable Internet access for at least a week. In retrospect, it's probably better to have someone who is already running a daily bot task take over this one, since that would mean I wouldn't need to have my PC on every day at a particular time. Let me know if you are interested. If not, then no problem, I can ask someone else. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look. Anomie 02:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BRFA filed Anomie 04:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bot is running on an indefinite trial now, so you can stop SporkBot if you want. It doesn't seem there is much chance of the bots edit warring, unless perhaps someone clears out the entire backlog. Anomie 11:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, once I saw your message, I shut off my bot. It looks like it is working perfectly. Thank you for taking over this task on such short notice! My bot was running for some time as a back up bot for another bot, then it eventually became the primary bot, when the other bot was shutdown. When we had two bots running at the same time, there were no issues. I had set my bot to start about 30 seconds after the other, and it would just do nothing if the first bot was successful. I've been running out of coffee shops for the past several weeks now, due to the big house move, so having your bot take over helps out quite a bit. It will be nice to not have to worry about leaving the computer on, as well. Thanks again! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request not done

Hi, you declined my edit request here, saying there was no consensus on "Seat of Government". While that's true, there is consensus for "option 2", not mentioning the capital in the box (which was also covered by the edit request). I figured the Seat-of-Government option could be useful for other articles, or later on East Germany too. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upon reviewing the discussion, there does appear to be consensus enough for your option 2.  Done Anomie 20:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! --Dailycare (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

less-illegal redirect sites

There are two requests on the spam blacklist to de-list ''. is a redirect site that redirects to Obviously, some links are blacklisted, and is pre-emptively blacklisted to avoid editors to link to the blacklisted movies.

The problem is, is suggested by youtube as to be used as a link via the share button, and many people will run into the blacklist when they use that link. I agree with the point made, is that most of the use of is in good faith, and it can (AFAIK) not be used to link to other domains - with we are sure it is linking to youtube and not to some blacklisted other site.

After you ran the script to remove the google redirects (which are a real problem), would it be possible to keep this task running for other redirect sites - we could then de-list (or whitelist it on en first), have a 'link rewrite rule' on a bot that converts them (there are more sites that have this, facebook and myspace e.g. also have it). In the odd case that the bot runs into the blacklist because the redirect was abused, the bot posts somewhere, the link is removed manually and the person who added the link is whacked with a trout? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that should be possible. Anomie 16:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Maybe you could weigh in at --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Running now. Anomie 15:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:MediationBot/Opened message +7days issue

Hi Anomie. I've been trying to get User:MediationBot/Opened message to subst, at the time the message is posted, the day by which parties must respond to the RFM. I've been doing something hacky with {{day+1}} and lots of includeonly-ed subst:s but it's not actually pasting at the time the message is posted, as I want: it's just sitting as {{day+1}}, so every time the user looks at the message, it's displaying the date seven days from today, rather than a fixed value. Could you look at this and see if you can fix it, and, if it's not possible, could you have MediationBot calculate the seven day period manually and enter it as plain text? No rush on this, but I suspect it'll be pretty easy for you to deal with. I forgot to say well done on your RFA: hope you're enjoying the new tools. Regards, AGK [] 12:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Instead of messing with {{Day+1}} (which is not designed to be substituted, although that would be easy enough to fix), I just used the #time function directly. Anomie 13:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really should have thought of that. Thanks! AGK [] 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

North American Numbering Plan

Instead of reverting valid, though out of date, information, why not tag it as out of date or better yet, provide the updated information yourself? Stripping out valid, referenced information isn't improving the encyclopedia.--RadioFan (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your information was not "valid, though out of date". It was just plain incorrect, extremely so because it was over a decade obsolete. I am under no obligation to correct your egregious errors, just to revert them. Anomie 22:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incorrect, out of date, we'll have to agree to disagree but it was referenced with a reputable source. The current edit is up to date and relavant to the article. This discussion seems to be tinged with "I dont like it", I expect more from an admin. You've taken it to the talk page for concensus (if anyone else cares) where it belongs and that I do appreciate and will of course abide by.--RadioFan (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because a source is reliable doesn't mean it's not wrong or out of date. As for the rest, it's not so much "I don't like it" as it is "we don't need to cram every tangential fact into every article". Anomie 03:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You get an award!

For all your hard work!

Eta-theta 03:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lists of Russians

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How often does MedcabBot update the case pages? It looks hourly to me. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 04:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Half-hourly, or whenever the bot gets restarted. It's easy to change, if necessary. Anomie 04:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nah, every half hour or so is OK, was just wondering because at times I noted it wasn't updating the new cases at times. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link Classifier

Hey, just wanted to let you know Link Classifier is brilliant. Very useful in my disambiguation work. I've started recommending it to others. Cheers, --JaGatalk 15:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Don't hat closed discussions"

Please comment on WT:TFD regarding this. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if it sticks I'll have to modify the bot. Or you could arrange for the hat to be inside the <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd tfd-closed" instead of outside it. Anomie 00:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TfD hatting

Regarding this comment you might be interested to know that I did not deliberately hat the discussion. It seems to be built into the Template:Tfdend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) template. I presumed that it hatted the discussion because of its length. If that is wrong then it is the template that needs adjusting, not me. SpinningSpark 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the section above. It seems someone decided to be "bold". Anomie 00:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Commons-logo.svg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Commons-logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for removing those three merge templates from protected pages. Debresser (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. Anomie 12:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagging with NowCommons

Hi! My bot is tagging files with a {{NowCommons}}. However, there is some "problems" with protected images. Either the bot fails (stopps) or it uses my account like here. Could you perhaps help me and

I'm afraid that if the bot tags the files with a NowCommons then some admins may delete the files by a mistake. --MGA73 (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bot really shouldn't be using your account, you know. Give me a list of files and I'll take a look. Anomie 12:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope that all the protected files are in Category:Protected images. If not there is a challenge. The tricky part is that I do not know which of the file are also on Commons; the bot finds out as it runs. If the file is on Commons the bot tries to add the NowCommons to the file page. If the file is protected then the bot crashes unless I let it use my sysop account. I tested to see if that was the problem; hence the edit above. I hope you can help me find the protected files and add the template. --MGA73 (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't the bot catch the API error response and not crash? Anyway, I'll have a look at that category. Anomie 14:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks :-) Yes it should be possible to fix the bot (it is the standard and if fixing the files in that category does not solve the problem that will probably be next step. --MGA73 (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Thank you for helping to create Wonky.  :-) benzband (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miami Marlins colors

Could you undo these two updates please, the colors were already updated to what they needed to be. Thanks. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 22:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Anomie 00:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inre santorum RfC closure

First, my appreciation for your response and considered closure.

Please be mindful that the existing text at the time of the RfC is as stated in the RfC opening...

In response to comments by Senator Rick Santorum, criticized as anti-gay by gay rights groups[1] and some politicians,[2] sex columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate Santorum's surname with a sexual slur. Savage's effort culminated in the creation of a derogatory word association often described as humorous and provocative as well as vulgar or unprintable.

The phrase "...often described as humorous and provocative as well as vulgar or unprintable" was temporarily removed in deference to an earlier RfC closed as "no consensus" AFTER the commencement of the RfC you just closed. Those voicing a "no change" comment were referencing the above stated text and that text should now be restored per your finding. Otherwise the RfC makes no sense. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read the RFC as whether to move the definition into the first paragraph or to leave it in the second paragraph, which is what most of the comments were in reaction to. I don't see any particular consensus to overturn that earlier decision to remove that phrase. Anomie 12:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not clear how you can arrive at that conclusion. The RfC "question" was clearly stated (and emboldened)...
"Should the characterization of the definition be replaced with the definition itself?"
The "characterization" referenced in that question is the aforementioned "characterization" that existed when the RfC was placed and about which the "no change" comments were directed.
I don't see any particular consensus to overturn that earlier decision to remove that phrase.
But, respectfully, you're misinterpreting the "finding" and circumstance of the earlier RfC. The earlier RfC (initiated by me) was inconclusive as to the "consensus" propriety of the then existing language (the same language cited above in the second RfC). It found "no consensus" as to the inclusion or exclusion of the disputed text. As the disputed text was the subject of frequent edit wars and as the newer RfC was re-addressing the same question, I temporarily removed the disputed phrase to mitigate further edit warring. I could have just as easily (and in compliance with the earlier RfC finding) left it in place as the status quo pending resolution of the second RfC on the same subject. JakeInJoisey (talk)
Please be mindful that it is the use of the characterization "vulgar or unprintable" in the lead paragraph that is the heart of the dispute here.
JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re-reading the closing of the prior RfC, I find that I'm partially in error and need to amend my observation above. The prior closing reads...
Closing comments There is no consensus for inclusion whether carefully written or not nor is there consensus on the "compromise solution". As there is no consensus to include, 'vulgar' should not be in to lead until a consensus is achieved in another RFC.
As you have determined that there appears to be no consensus acceptable language thus far established, I'm withdrawing my expression of concern as stated above pending any further input from interested editors. Thanks again for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Vitruvian Barnstar.png The da Vinci Barnstar
For Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 60. Sixty BRFAs! Quite the milestone, you must be doing something right. Congratulations! Chris 13:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! At one point several BRFAs ago someone (on IRC, IIRC) described the number of AnomieBOT BRFAs as "trying to get to WP:100 the hard way", which I've always found humorous. And this makes 10 da Vinci Barnstars for me, too! (: Anomie 16:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'd be happy to hand those tables over to you. I assume you are username 'anomie' on toolserver, right? Let me clean up the files for those tasks and I will be able to give you a tarball with everything in it this weekend. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there's an 'anomie' on the toolserver, it's not me. Whenever I've looked (which I haven't lately), the backlogs have been too long and it's in general looked like too much trouble. I am looking forward to Wikimedia Tool Labs, which I hope will turn out to be less hassle. I'd rewrite the task in Perl using my AnomieBOT framework and run it from my own machine. Anomie 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, the code that creates the tables is at [12]. It's already in perl, but the bot framework is different. That is at [13]. Thanks for taking it over; I don't want the tables to go away, but I need to get some things off my plate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seem to have it working, unless you think I missed something. I particularly like this edit. In case you're curious, the code is at User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/ Anomie 02:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Updated as needed" - what a great idea! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally can't stand when a page is edited solely to update the timestamp. And since I wanted to reduce the delay (AnomieBOT checks the cat every 5 minutes, instead of every 30), that would have taken it from 48 to 288 edits per day without skipping timestamp-only edits. Anomie 17:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a suggestion - I've always thought it would be nicer if the bot would just produce the data for the table, and let the formatting be determined on-wiki via a template. Then tweaks could be made to the presentation of the table without having to change the bot's code. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a bad idea, except that we lack any sort of looping construct so the template would have an arbitrary limit on the number of requests it can handle. Anomie 18:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In principle you might be able to do it like User:VeblenBot/C/GAR uses Template:CF/GAR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would think a limit of 20 would be ample, with a warning which displays on overflow. Or perhaps the bot could call a "table row" template n times. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great news. I see that a lot of people are transcluding User:VeblenBot/PERtable directly, rather than transcluding the redirect WP:PERTABLE. Whenever you're ready, I can just turn off my bot and redirect both of those pages to the table your bot makes, and that should make the change. I will also do the same thing for the SPER table. I can do that whenever you would like, just give the word. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go ahead whenever you're ready. Anomie 03:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Thanks again for taking this over. The new functionality will be appreciated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did the bot adjust this row with a new time? Nothing seemed to change on that page at that time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bug. Fixed it about 18 hours ago. Anomie 15:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion: I don't think there is any point in showing the last entry of the protection log of pages in the MediaWiki namespace, as these pages cannot be protected/unprotected anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Substitution checking

Please see the two sections I posted about this subject on Template_talk:Fix#Substitution_check and Template_talk:Fix#Method_of_substitution_check (one right after the other). I compare Ambox with Fix, asking a few questions and making a few suggestions. Debresser (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stella images-OTRS pending

What is going on with {{Stella image}}? It appears this template transcluding OTRS pending on every image that uses this template. I posted at the OTRS noticeboard regarding this. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question. I forwarded email to OTRS on November 28, how long does OTRS usually take to process things? Anomie 17:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have mail

{{YGM}}—Your friendly neighbourhood pain in the arse OTRS agent, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha, no problem. Replied to the email. Anomie 19:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't find it. Did you leave the ticket number in the subject line? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Subject line was "Re: [Ticket#2011112810034763] Permission for use of images created by Stella, and for two screenshots of Stella." Anomie 20:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resent it, just in case. Anomie 20:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bingo; I've got that one (the system emails me when somebody replies to one of my tickets so I don't have to log in to know!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't there a bot for that?

When I saw this edit I thought it was your bot at first! Nice catch there, I'd looked at it earlier and hadn't spotted that it was the wrong template. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 16:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's certainly a task a bot could do easily. I wonder if there is consensus for it, though? Maybe I'll start a discussion somewhere later. Anomie 16:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would be a useful, as long as it recognises the first parameter (for the name of the page to be edited), so for example a request for an editnotice on the talk page of a semi-protected article would not be changed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request

Hi, Anomie, I can't figure out your use of that image in responding to my edit request at Talk:Occidental Petroleum. Did I use the wrong template or something?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a reference to a humorous page, m:The Wrong Version. The point behind the humor is that no matter which version is protected, one side or the other will always consider it the "wrong" version. This is why the Protection policy advises administrators to protect whichever happens to be current at the time. Except where the current version clearly violates certain core policies, admins are not supposed to pick one or the other of the versions being warred over.
A second option for the protecting admin is to revert to the version before the edit war, if such a version can be clearly determined. In a quick glance through the history I didn't see such a point, or I would have suggested you ask the protecting admin to consider doing that. You can of course ask Tedder to consider that, if you want to; perhaps he can identify a pre-edit-war revision. Anomie 18:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanation and the suggestion. I'll follow up with Tedder.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Model Army

The user AnomieBOT (talk) recently tagged a number of paragraphs in the article New Model Army. However, the tags seem rather arbitrary. Some blindingly obvious facts are tagged with [citation needed], while I great number of much more contentious assertions are left alone. When I reverted these tags on the grounds that there was insufficient rationale for applying them in such fashion, I was instantly reverted.

As I risk a ban for edit-warring if I revert again, I must leave things as they are for the moment. However, I would ask that you investigate this incident, and please give explanations for these tags. HLGallon (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The explanation is simple: AnomieBOT did not add the tags. If you look closely at AnomieBOT's edit, you will see that the tags were already there and all AnomieBOT did was add |date=December 2011 to them. And if you look closely at your own edits, you'll see that you didn't actually remove the tags, you just removed the dates the bot added.
The tags were added, along with the removal of some other content that had previously been tagged for some time, in the previous edit. You'll want to discuss the tags with N2e (talk · contribs). Anomie 15:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you 2

Thanks Anomie. Sorry for not adding my request in writing and signing. I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Editnotice#Creating_editnotices stating -

"To request the creation of an editnotice if you are not an admin:
Open the edit window of the page where you want to create an editnotice
Place this request on the page: {{editnotice talkpagename}}
Preview the page and follow the link to the editnotice's talkpage.
On the editnotice's talkpage write up the exact markup you want for the editnotice, then place an {{editprotected}} request above it."

Do you think the instructions should be expanded, or am I just dim Face-wink.svg?

Thanks again, really. fredgandt 16:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I didn't know the instructions said that; IMO, they certainly should be expanded. Anomie 16:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy to give that a go if you like. You can check up on it later of course. I'm easy. Thanks again. fredgandt 16:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've expanded the instructions. You may like to check them over (bottom of that section) and correct anything you see fit to. fredgandt 16:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look good. Anomie 17:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Face-blush.svg I might like to quiz you about post requests for scripted editing at some point soon (if I can't work it out myself that is) if you wouldn't mind. fredgandt 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free. Anomie 17:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that. I always try to figure stuff out myself first, but never feel any shame about asking for help when needed. I'll get back to you if I fail. Thanks again. fredgandt 17:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those instructions were certainly confusing, and they are still quite long and cumbersome. It might be better to encourage editors to add the request to the article's talk page. We could create a new template {{editnotice request}} which would automatically link to the correct editnotice page. Actually it could just be a wrapper template for {{edit protected}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Anomie,

could be so kind and release the image to the Public Domain? I think that in a lot of jurisdictions it doesn't meet the threshold of originality and a lot of other wiki-sites already use it without referencing this instance or any name. Explicitly releasing it into the PD would be The Sane Thing™ to do. Although if you have any registered trademark on it, please include it ;-).

Well ... hmmm , now that I see it's a local copy and not made by you (correct me if I'm wrong), can someone release it into the Public Domain on the basis that it doesn't meet the criteria for originality?

Soo I looked into the discussion on Commons and some thick-headed person disputed the claim of the original Public Domain license, on the basis that it was based on the heavily pixelated png, although it includes modification of blur and text... sigh. I just want this simple image to be in the PD. :-/

Sorry if I bothered you and thanks a lot! (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, the copy here is just a local copy in which I have no copyright interest. I see three courses of action for you:
  1. Contact the original uploader of File:CC SomeRightsReserved.png (commons:User:Jelte) with the above.
  2. Start a general discusion on Commons about the ineligibility of File:CC SomeRightsReserved.png and File:CC some rights reserved.svg. IMO it certainly would be ineligible in the US, but I don't know about the Netherlands.
  3. Make a "clean" reimplementation of the image, and upload it as PD-ineligible.
HTH. Also, BTW, I don't see that the "not public domain" discussion on commons:File talk:CC some rights reserved.svg considered the possibility of ineligibility, as the tag was "PD-self" rather than "PD-ineligible". Anomie 12:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thank you for the suggestions, how do I go about doing #2? and I thought about #3 though as I said a lot of wikis already copied the work, and don't reference it, so it would be considerably less effort to make it PD instead of notifying each one of them. (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:Commons:Village pump would probably be a good place to start for #2. As for #3, I don't know anything about what other wikis might do, but I would imagine most reference the Commons version. The only reason we don't do so directly is because we don't trust "some thick-headed person" on Commons not to unprotect or move it. Anomie 14:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Just for clarification, I don't question and I understand the reason for the wider discussion-based changing of things, but seeing as you placed trust in just two persons to assess the modifications as not worthy of any originality and as a derivative so to change the license from PD-self to GFDL & CC-BY-SA, whereby none of them were actual (co-)authors, I don't know, is it that much different?... And I wanted to say stubborn instead of thick-headed ("dickköpfig"... direct translation errors :-/), imagining a Prussian bureaucrat adhering to the word of licenses 1 to 1... Greets (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Free' images of non-free subjects

Please see {{{Photo of art}} and the comments Postdlf made on my User talk page Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you

I just wanted to say thanks for the speedy reply to my edit request (on Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Sex symbol) and for all the work you do around here. I always see contributions by you and your bot. Just wanted to show some Wikilove ;-) -MsBatfish (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome! Anomie 17:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it acceptable?

Hiya. I feel it would be best to create separate css pages for each script I have made. The reason: Once the scripts are as good as I can make them (coming along well), I will offer them to other users. Most rely on specific styling to function (display properties etc). So if each script had its own css page to import, each could be used as a stand-alone script (at this time, all scripts feed off one css page). Would you (as both a programmer and an admin) say that is a fair use/reason to create a whole bunch of new pages? All would be in my user-space, but they would still take up space. fredgandt 03:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating a separate css page for each separate script is certainly a good idea. Anomie 17:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And not possible to consider greedy (use of pages)? fredgandt 17:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's fine. "Bad" things to do with user pages include violating WP:NOT#WEBHOST or creating thousands of subpages and updating them constantly for trivial purpose (as did User:StatusBot, for example). Creating a few dozen css files for your userscripts is absolutely no concern. Anomie 17:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome. Thanks for always responding. Sheep stone! fredgandt 17:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, what's sheep stone? Wifione Message 18:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 4#Something is still a bit off. Anomie 19:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Astounding :) Merry Christmas Anomie; and wishes for a fantastic new year. Wifione Message 19:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, you too. Anomie 19:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Face-wink.svg fredgandt 19:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The keeplocal templates

Hi, Anomie. I too went to User talk:Ankit Maity to protest about the pointless AWB editing, and I've seconded your query. Did you happen to notice the link there to this relevant discussion? Bishonen | talk 23:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I did not see that. Not terribly surprised, though; there seems to be a growing number of editors who think that AWB rules (or any sort of sanity) don't apply to arbitrarily bypassing redirects (template and otherwise). This is also exemplified in the overuse and abuse of Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects: they seem to interpret "it's a redirect!" to somehow be the "consensus in favour of the template renaming" called for in the page instructions. Anomie 01:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

infobox ukcave

Thank you for your thoughtful close of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011_November_22#Template:Infobox_ukcave. The long discussion was a rather unusual mixture of considerate, thoughtful insight and sheer rudery so closing it was not going to be easy. I also see you took a lot of effort over your remarks at Template_talk:Infobox_cave#Merge_from_Template:Infobox_ukcave. At the beginning, I thought the nomination (that it was a fork) was ill-considered and trivial. Indeed, the doubled maintenance is no big deal. However, as the discussion continued it transpired that there were advantages to a merge, even for those wanting suppression of some coordinates whilst allowing others. Thincat (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. I just hope that people can manage to come to a good conclusion on how to merge the templates. Not like the last time I closed a Tfd, the nominator ignored the "keep" closure and redirected the template anyway. Anomie 00:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]