help with AWB/botEdit

Hi. I hope you are doing well.
I recently filed a BRFA. I am aware you are in the BAG. But I am asking you this question because I think you can help me with it, as your bot does the same thing (but it is programmed in perl). In the previous BRFA, I had a problematic edit: special:diff/843217671. At that time, I thought the talkpage banner was posted out of the banner shell because the {{WikiProject Banner Shell| parameter didnt have |1= in it.

Then I made a successful edit with same situation: special:diff/969699784. In this edit, 1= parameter was missing too, and my edit added it; and placed the project banner inside the shell. If there are two banners already present, then the edit is successfully adding banner shell to the talkpage: special:diff/969697871.

But the previous issue still exists. I just realised that sometimes (not always) the banner is being placed outside the shell even if everything looks fine: special:diff/970023480. Apparently, it successfully adds the 1= parameter when it is missing (every time, I checked this without saving the edits). But I am not sure what is causing the banner to be placed outside the shell sometimes. What do you think? I couldnt find any differences in successful vs problematic edits.

Also, is there any way to tell the AWB to place the banner inside the shell if there is shell present? I skimmed through Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Regular expression, but couldn't find a solution. I hope you can help.

Here is the regex/module I've been using:

public string ProcessArticle(string ArticleText, string ArticleTitle, int wikiNamespace, out string Summary, out bool Skip)
            Regex header = new Regex(@"\{\{{WikiProject Organized crime|{{WikiProject Organized Crime|{{WikiProject Fictional characters|{{Comicsproj|{{WikiProject Film|{{Film|{{WikiProject Video games|{{WikiProject Television|{{WPTV|{{WP Fictional|{{WikiProject Novels|{{WikiProject Anime|{{TelevisionWikiProject|{{WPFILM|{{WikiProject Songs|{{WP film|{{WPBooks|{{WikiProject Cities|{{NovelsWikiProject", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
            Summary = "Added banner for [[WP:WikiProject Organized Crime]]";
            Skip = (header.Match(ArticleText).Success || !Namespace.IsTalk(ArticleTitle));
            if (!Skip)
                ArticleText = "{{WikiProject Organized Crime}} \r" + ArticleText;
            return ArticleText;

—usernamekiran (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The issue has been resolved   I have explained it in the BRFA. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!Edit

  I love penguins! SamMontana (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

edit conflicts, againEdit

Twice today I have had over half an hour's worth of complicated copy edits overridden by a date added to a tag. The first one I managed to reconstruct, which took longer than the original edit. For reasons that are not clear to me, the second time lost everything, and I no longer have the enthusiasm to try to fix it. Is it not possible to get the system to prioritise content building edits over bot date additions as default? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) When you get an edit conflict from this bot, which happens to me occasionally, just copy your text into the editing box and save it. The bot will return to the article, and it won't mind at all. The best ways to avoid edit conflicts are to save more often and edit in sections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
You can also use {{inuse}} if you're planning on doing an involved edit to the article. AnomieBOT's TagDater task will see the page's membership in Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit and wait for two hours of inactivity before dating the article rather than the default 20 minutes. AnomieBOT's OrphanReferenceFixer also honors it, again waiting for two hours of inactivity versus the default 10 minutes. Anomie 13:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A Manual of Religious BeliefEdit

Hello, I note the tag that this article is in 'essay style'. I have read through the policy link and I don't see the problem. I am happy ot improe the article. Could you provide a 'corrected' example to assist? Rosser Gruffydd 08:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I had nothing to do with that article, nor any interest in it. Anomie 10:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@Rosser1954: It was actually Esprit15d who placed that tag. You should ask her instead. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration archivingEdit

Hey Anomie, the arbitration clerks have recently adopted a small formatting change for arbitration announcements. Specifically, we're using {{slink}} for the "Discuss this" links on the arbitration noticeboard. You can see an example here. Could you update AnomieBot to recognize those links in {{slink}} and to use that template when changing links to reflect archived discussions? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The bot will preserve the existing style of link, it will not convert plain links to {{slink}} or vice versa. Supporting both methods was annoying enough. I hope you don't intend to use the multiple sections or suppressing page name features, as that will not work. Anomie 02:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Anomie, sorry for the hassle and thanks for the change – we will not be using the multiple sections or suppressing page name features. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:User is blockedEdit


If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Template:User is blocked requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 17. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry for the template above. This template wasn’t being actively used until today when someone decided to resurrect it. It seems to be covered by the TfD above, so I tagged it as G4, but I can re: TfD if you want. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see where it was discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 17; Template:Blocked user seems to have been significantly different.

I have no objection to deletion of the template, it was created for just one purpose from which it seems to have been orphaned with Special:Diff/408409114 back in 2011. OTOH, I see at least one existing use that could be valid. I don't see a CSD criteria that would apply, unfortunately. Anomie 20:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think G4 applies since while not discussed the intent of that discussion was to get rid of tags that were stating that someone was just blocked. It was only not included by oversight because it was orphaned. I don’t really think the graphics used matter in terms of the criterion, but I also don’t have a problem taking it to TfD. I’ll go ahead and do that now: thanks for the response. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!Edit

Wishing Anomie a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 10:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!Edit

Everyone uses your tools - I hope you know how much the community appreciates your contributions! Thank you so much! Ikjbagl (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


person behind the bots

Thank you for quality gnomish work of the bots you run, and the offer to create more, for dealing with redirects for discussion and adding redirect templates, for care for articles about video games, for a start with knock knock in 2005, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2457 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent comment at WT:LuaEdit

I just wanted to follow up here to this interaction. Was your issue with the ping I left:

  • That you were called Mr. Scribunto, or
  • That you don't want to be asked for help with Lua/MediaWiki's integration with Lua?

I didn't mean to offend there if the first -- I personally used the term because I associate you with Knowledge of Things Lua and certainly did not mean it in any sense to be related to your former employer or your then/earlier job of maintaining the extension (the leaving from which I did know of). If it was the second, I would be disappointed to hear that, but you get to define the terms of your wiki engagement. --Izno (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: I wasn't really offended, sorry that I came across that way. I'll still answer what questions I can, particularly in the context of on-wiki module editing, but I don't intend to spend much time digging into issues with the code anymore since I'd rather not give free labor to an organization that treated me so poorly in the end. Anomie 13:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear about the poor treatment—I wish the WMF were less predictable. Thanks very much for your excellent work with Scribunto, and no doubt with other things that I never saw. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)