User talk:Helpful Pixie Bot/archive2

Posts from SmackBot's talk page. Any further discussion should go on my talk page as I don't watch this page.

In most cases I've answered the editor on their talk page as User:Rich Farmbrough. So I've put a quick one line note t those where I've not previously archived my response, in case it's of interest to anyone. Rich  Farmbrough 12:46 27  May 2006 (UTC).

SmackBot problem
SmackBot wants to tag Bothrops affinis as an orphaned article. However, this is one of many pages in a collection of redirects and disambiguation pages for the taxonomic synonyms of a collection of articles on snakes that I've been building for the past two years. In this case, Bothrops affinis started out as a redirect, a synonym for Bothrops atrox, but was later turned into a disambiguation page when I found that it was also a synonym for Atropoides nummifer occiduus. So, this page definitely serves its purpose. Furthermore, I thought that it was not direable for any other articles to be linked to a disambiguation page in the first place. --Jwinius (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasnt tagged with a disambig template, I have tagged it now.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WHS. Rich Farmbrough, 12:39 1 September 2008 (GMT).

Line break removal
As an editor who regularly works on WP:AIR aircraft articles, the removal of the line spaces within the aircraft specifications and aircontent templates is extremely annoying. The SPecs template in particular is very long, and the Aircontent one can be, and the line spaces help aid in spotting the correct group of fields quickly, especially to those whose eyes are no longer 20/20. Please have Smackbot stop removing these line spaces. Thanks for your consideration of the physical limitations of others over mere guidelines. - BillCJ (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

liks instead of links
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Needles_Hallowell&diff=prev&oldid=235658650 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cutlery&curid=399551&diff=235653435&oldid=234246485 for examples. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * TYVM Fixed. Rich  Farmbrough 20:14 1  September 2008 (UTC).

obnoxious removal of line breaks
obnoxious removal of line breaks

Editing User Page
User talk:SmackBot edited my user page User:HagiMalachi. User pages may only be edited by the user. -HagiMalachi (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing line breaks from templates
Please stop removing line breaks from templates

Merging Rather than Delete
The article Norma (female name) was recently nominated for deletion, but a better alternative instead of deleting Norma would happen being merging rather than deleting. May you please consider intertwining that section to the Wikipedia section Norman (name)? And besides, articles would really require time for doing and growing and blossoming; proper information is not always easy to retrieve-not everyone editing Wikipedia knows what information and sources are correct. Neurotic heart (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Turnford and Cheshunt Pits
Hi The bot is still leaving maintenance tags after I added 2 references. Cheers Northmetpit (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot problem: lifetime, uk-bio-stub, ((tl|uncat}}
Robert Darley Waddilove Hi Rich. We chatted the other week, and you said that the AWB rendition was behind and was awaiting update. However, your bot is still going and making changes that are contrary to the template instructions, plus it seems to remove stubs, and then add uncategorizedstub. The changes being made seem of no real value and therefore unnecessary, or possibly I am missing something.

As a newer wpedian, it is a little grating, and I end up having to scramble off to work out what is what. Can you either suspend that component of the bot, or get it retrained, or educate me better on what I need to do better. Thx -- billinghurst (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot problem
This thing seems to be wiping out alot of innocent edits. Tell me if I am wrong. AdirondackMan (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Messing up merge template
Please see this diff which changed the article from "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Shadows in the Desert: Persia at War" to "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with |." Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben E. King - I've Been Around
I've been working to add a general starting point for a full Ben E. King discography and am nowhere near finished. Please do not impose SmackBot on any of the work I'm doing, as I will be researching information for the articles on an ongoing basis until finished. I think I still have some missing albums as well, and I have to get my citation leaving figured out so I can do a runthrough of articles and add citations all at once.

I think SmackBot found this article because I said this is Ben's latest album, so I understand why it found me. I think I found another album from 2007 now and thus might be proving myself wrong. I'll be editing the page in the future as I get to it. Please leave a msg. on my talk page and we can chat further about this if needed. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Chinese exonyms for places in Japan
Thank you for your edit. --Atitarev (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Messing up merge template
Please see this diff which changed the article from "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Shadows in the Desert: Persia at War" to "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with |." Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben E. King - I've Been Around
I've been working to add a general starting point for a full Ben E. King discography and am nowhere near finished. Please do not impose SmackBot on any of the work I'm doing, as I will be researching information for the articles on an ongoing basis until finished. I think I still have some missing albums as well, and I have to get my citation leaving figured out so I can do a runthrough of articles and add citations all at once.

I think SmackBot found this article because I said this is Ben's latest album, so I understand why it found me. I think I found another album from 2007 now and thus might be proving myself wrong. I'll be editing the page in the future as I get to it. Please leave a msg. on my talk page and we can chat further about this if needed. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Chinese exonyms for places in Japan
Thank you for your edit. --Atitarev (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot problem
While delinking dates, the bot is changing the format and removing normal punctuation. This was observed by a user at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Note that I blocked the bot for 24 hours solely so that this could be discussed without further bot edtis, but unblocked just now when I read that an edit here would stop the bot from further action.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ray Parker, Jr. page
First, thank you for your edits. I take it that you are a common user who is familiar with this. I am a new user whose sources of updated information came from interviews shared with the public by Ray Parker, Jr. His original page sadly lacked updates as any musician should receive when new information becomes public so in gathering information about him and attempting to stay within Wikipedia guidelines, I have sources that I placed in however, there are still the warnings. Would you be kind enough to help me do what needs to be done in order for the page not to be deleted and it can stay 'verifiable'? Thank you

Cybdisco--Cybdisco (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Edmond Dantès
Smackbot changed the correct spelling (Dantès) to an incorrect one (Dantes) of in a DEFAULTSORT tag for Edmond Dantès. Should it do that? --Ccady (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just found the same issue with Gérard de Nerval --Ccady (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it should. Otherwise Dantès, Edmond would be listed before Dantes, Andrew. Rich  Farmbrough 14:43 5  October 2008 (UTC).

SmackBot problem
This diff shows SmackBot inserting "Totally-disputed-section" into math equations. Can you repair that please? Dicklyon (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop this crap!
It's too late to undo. Can you pleae try to repair this, and respond to the note above: . Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00 10 October 2008 (UTC).

Problem with redirects
See yor talk. I'll reassess MediaWiki's redirect parsing algorithm to make AWB work closer to it. Max S em(Han shot first!) 12:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done in . Max S em(Han shot first!) 14:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot still tagging and breaking redirects
The problem reported on October 7 where Smackbot is tagging and breaking redirects has returned. Recent examples are available here, here, and here. --Allen3 talk 15:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * FIxed better. Rich  Farmbrough 11:48 19  October 2008 (UTC).

SmackBot problem
See Spengler's freshwater mussel and Pseudunio auricularia
 * Fixed the articles. THe guy had put nowiki'd substs of a template in the merge ... theres only so much I anticipate, or even reacte to programatically. Rich   Farmbrough 11:52 19  October 2008 (UTC).

SmackBot problem
SmackBot has decided that the Fea's viper redirect is uncategorized, when in fact it already is tagged for. There are thousands more of such snake-related redirects that are similarly categorized. Is it really necessary for them all to be given additional category tags? If so, perhaps SmackBot can be programmed to recognize these existing category tags and automatically apply the correct additional tags. --Jwinius (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I'll take a look. I've fixed up FV. Rich  Farmbrough 11:53 19  October 2008 (UTC).

R from alternative name
The bot seems to be applying R from alternative name rather indiscriminately. Examples:, ,. These are not alternate names. Alternate names are for pseudonyms, nick names, synonyms, etc.

In addition, it has a bug:

Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Ones like this should really be R from plural. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it should have been just doing some snake redirects. I'll review those redirects manually tomorrow (it's only 1000 or less). Rich   Farmbrough 01:51 20  October 2008 (UTC).

Redirects
Probably too minor an issue to stop the bot, but the bot is doing a lot of edits like this, where there is no space between the magic word and the target. The redirect is still functional, of course, but the result looks ugly to a human eye. Also, can you fix the magic word so it is always in caps? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Rich  Farmbrough 17:18 20  October 2008 (UTC).

See User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough
Four broken redirects (so far) is too many --Rumping (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed already, cleanup ongoing. Rich  Farmbrough 22:50 20  October 2008 (UTC).

SmackBot problem
The bot seems to be adding R to other namespace to any redirect with a colon, even if it is not another namespace, ,. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * T wo more odd ones that might be unrelated to the above: A redirect involving a subpage, and a redirect where there was a space after the colon . -- Ned Scott 05:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Doh, never mind on those last two. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all fixed. Rich  Farmbrough 11:33 21  October 2008 (UTC).

bad edits to the Help namespace
Hi there. Based on recent contributions, such as at Help:Help! the bot is currently marking redirects in the Help: namespace as {{subst:tl|R to other namespace, even when they are not. This may be because most of the redirects originate here and most of the substantive help pages originate at meta, but in any case, it's not correct behavior. I'm posting here to stop the bot, but I won't be around all day; feel free to restart without anything further from me, once you've addressed this. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK fixing these, abut 10 I think. Rich  Farmbrough 17:59 21  October 2008 (UTC).

SmackBot problem
Can you review my edit on Angel Locsin. Backmeupof2 (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

STOP SmackBot
please stop the edit, you causing serious problems on the entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slater_%26_Gordon
 * (Of course it wasn't) Rich  Farmbrough 02:44 27  October 2008 (UTC).

removed stub tag
In this edit on Silver Lake, Oregon, SmackBot did two routine operations which are fine. But it also removed the tag. Is that a new feature? Is it somehow assessing the article, or finding an assessment elsewhere that says it is no longer a stub? —EncMstr (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

, thanks for your message, SmackBot makes a number of changes that are available to all WP:AWB bots - in general these provide a number of non-controversial minor improvements.

Stub articles are very short: Longer articles which do not provide encyclpasedic coverage can still be tagged with EXapnd. Do not confuse an artice being a stub with the WP1.0 and wikiprojects articles assement which simply uses stubbiness to categorise articles in an assesment calss without involving humans.

Regards,

Infobox German Location Subdivision
Please be aware that there is no Template:Infobox German location Subdivision, the template is called Infobox German Location Subdivision, if the bot change the captial, the article has no infobox. E.g. Allermöhe. Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks, fixed. Rich  Farmbrough 21:32 10  November 2008 (UTC).

Issue with The 104th Season of the Chicago White Sox
I had to revert an article, The 104th Season of the Chicago White Sox, that SmackBot edited, because it screwed up the formatting of the merge template. -Dewelar (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Need to investiagte more.

SmackBot problem
I reverted changes made by your Bot to the article Doraine and Ellis. It messed up well-formatted references and erroneously stated that there was no text to accompany the references. If you'd like to make the minor edits it suggested elsewhere (which really seem unnecessary), please do so manually. --Contributingfactor (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well they use the non-statndard qutes, but easy fix, done. Rich  Farmbrough 03:10 12  November 2008 (UTC).

SmackBot problem
Your bot kicked a template off a page that I've been struggling to put together for a while. It consists of ~33 Universities allowed to have an Enlish-Medium Medical Program here in China. It did this on the Dalian Medical University, adn I'm glad someone reversed those changes. You can check the history to confirm this.

Thanks. Compendium wmc (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It didn't. cn is a refdirect to Fact. The stub template was moved to the bottom. That's the only changes: see [V here] Rich   Farmbrough 13:45 2  December 2008 (UTC).

Sources and Unreferenced
Hello. The bot seems to be replacing Sources with Unreferenced. See for example here and here. I don't think this is right because these tags say significantly different things. One is about an article having no sources, the other is less serious in that it just needs additional sources. Thank you. Martin 14:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gun Kata
Bot threw down an OR tag on Gun Kata. There's a rather long discussion on it refuting the OR claim from over a year ago. X Kolchak X (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot problem
you have reverted the islamic book article which has so many citation tags placed by me for last 4 months, please revert to farrukh38 edit and talk before reverting to old articlle..thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The title "Further Reading" was edited to "Further reading". All of the titles in this article have capital letters. Because of this edit, the article's titles are inconsistent. --AYNIL (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please help me learn perl.--Shock64 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot problem
Hi there, the bot has malfunctioned twice, deleting the entire article twice within the last four days: and. It is an article that needs a lot of work, but it shouldn't be totally deleted. Thanks for your understanding -- sorry to stop the bot, but I hope we can fix the problem. My best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot problem
Hi

RE: Request for removal of tags on article.

I'm a new user who has promptly revised my article to conform to Wiki guidelines. An Admin has also checked my page and helped with revisions and links. My article fits your guidelines, including footnotes and resources, yet instead of removal of the original tag another tag has been added to it. I have cited other similar Wiki small press articles that have not been flagged for reasons my article is now unjustly flagged. This info can be found on the talk page where I described the situation in detail. I feel my article is complete and in compliance, and request removal of all three tags.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Forest_Press_Publishing

Thank you !! Victoriasky (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

THE CRYIN SHAMES    IF YOU ARE GOING TO TIDY UP PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU SPELL MY NAME RIGHT, IT IS NOT ROTLEDGE IT IS ROUTLEDGE  THANK YOU
THE CRYIN SHAMES     IF YOU ARE GOING TO TIDY UP PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU SPELL MY NAME RIGHT, IT IS NOT ROTLEDGE IT IS ROUTLEDGE  THANK YOU.RITCHIE ROUTLEDGE.

"Ibid" tag
I think this tag is somewhat ridiculous, but if it must be added to article (as opposed to talk pages), it should go down at the bottom, near the references, not at the top, where it is extremely intrusive and unsightly, for no significant reason. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason for ading at thetop is simply that this is where such tags go historically, albeit for specific reasons. There is no simple way  to gaurantee that the ibid/op cit/loc cit is in the referencs section, however if I re-run this on the next database dump I will investigate the possibility of doing so.  Rich   Farmbrough 00:24 19  January 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the consideration. I do understand the historical issue, but it's a pet peeve of mine that clean-up tags, which are essentially post-it notes between editors are put in a place which makes the article less attractive and usable for the reader, the person we're supposed to be building the encyclopedia for. In this case, it's highly likely that such abbreviations will be used in a ref, and therefore seen in the notes at the bottom, even though they are sprinkled throughout the editing text, so the bottom is the best place to catch the attention of people likely to do that sort of fix.  At the top just disfigures the page for the ordinary user of Wikipedia, who most probably could care less about ibids and op cits. Thanks again. I hope you'll be able to make that change. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The tag was improperly added to Anti-Judaism. This article cites different pages within certain works, and the bot should be able to figure this out. Per WP:REFNAME: "Named references are used when there are several cases of repetition of exactly the same reference, including the page number for books; they should not be used to cite different pages in the same book." -- Kendrick7talk 23:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the issue is that if the first occurance of the work is removed, the ibid. is left dangling. There is an alternative citation style that can be used, as you likely know, for such works. Rich  Farmbrough 00:24 19  January 2009 (UTC).
 * And two more of my articles. Stop!!! -- Kendrick7talk 23:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SmackBot will have already stopped. Rich  Farmbrough 00:24 19  January 2009 (UTC).

SmackBot problem
STOP. I'm not spending the rest of the day reverting misplaced IBID tags!! See for another example. It needs to pay attention to page #s per WP:REFNAME. -- Kendrick7talk 23:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that the bot stopped when I posted the comment above, you're just coming across edits it's already made. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

ibid
I object to a bot slapping articles with warning boxes. If your bot really feels so strongly about abbreviations used in articles, let it drop a note on talk like everyone else. --dab (𒁳) 06:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE do not put Ibid template at top of article when it isn't needed or wanted at the top of articles!
Please do not place the Ibid template (which refers to extremely minor and trivially cosmetic neeeded fixes) up at the top of an article -- where its large box looks obnoxious and annoyingly intrusive for very little real purpose -- when it's only relevant to a "Bibliography" or "References" or "Further reading" section far down the page (near the very end). Thank you. AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibid Template
The ibid template has been inappropriately added to the article Bibliography of Carlos Castaneda. Evidently the robot discovered op. cit. comments in the text of the article rather than in one of the footnote or reference sections where its use is, appropriately, discouraged by the Wikipedia style guide.

If the robot is to be used at all, it should be fixed so that the ibid template is added only in cases where op. cit, etc. appears in a reference, footnote or other works cited sections of the article and not in the primary text of the article itself.

Thanks. Mmyotis  (^^o^^)  22:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot problem
The geo-stub needs to stay above the commune template on French commune pages. Ksnow (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Ksnow
 * No stubs go at the end. Rich Farmbrough, 12:07 22 January 2009 (UTC).

Re:Ibid tag
Please stop putting ugly tags at the head of articles. Its service at alerting users of articles with this content does not make up for uglifying the article for a reason that does not serve the readership (categorize the page without the template if you must, or the talk page or something). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Inded. This is inappropriate and I will revert it on sight. Haukur (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going through reverting with rollback, but it is really tedious and works only if no-one has changed the article since (there are simply too many to reverse without using either that or a bot). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fully agree with the above comments. This is not only defacing articles but a complete waste of time; ibid., op. cit. etc are standard abbreviations (Oops - should I have used etc. just now? I can sense another few hundred thousand pointless edits looming on the horizon...). Let editors judge whether their use is appropriate or not in a given article. Also, just occurred to me, is SmackBot related to NannyBot?! Enaidmawr (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that these edits are inappropriate. While these do need to be converted to named refs, this would be better done by people with AWB, or by putting the tag at the beginning of the references section, rather than at the top of the page. I can see this as scaring off scholarly contributors who have been using the citations for their entire professional lives and could see it as pointless (which it is, to a great extent. Putting them in a category would be a great idea, as suggested above- a couple of AWB users could fix all of the categorized pages in one swoop...  Litho  derm  22:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, by using rollback you also remove all the other edits that Smackbots does. Rollback is for vandalism -- weather or not you agree with this, this isn't vandalism and instad the tag itself should just be removed. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't use rollback on good faith human edits out of courtesy. There's no need for courtesy when it comes to bot edits. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said. A bot can very easily re-do its correct edits when fixed. The use of mass rollback is appropriate in this case. – xeno  ( talk ) 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed with all above. rdunn PLIB  10:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibid
This run is complete, please leave any comments on my talk page. Note that any future run will: Rich  Farmbrough 08:51 20  January 2009 (UTC).
 * Only consider footnotes.
 * put the ambox in the footnotes section.

SmackBot problem
Long feng zhi: changed November to ZNovember in wikify tag.

Date error?
SmackBot just add a Z to each month in date fields here. I have not seen it do this to any other articles I watch yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Z
THANKS I AM ON IT Rich  Farmbrough 16:32 30  January 2009 (UTC).

Thanks Smackbot
Even robots need thanks every now and then. Spinach Monster (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot problem
Hi! Your bot breaks templates. -- kallerna 15:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed. Rich  Farmbrough 18:51 6  February 2009 (UTC).

SmackBot damages tags
SmackBot made disruptive edits to South Korea. While SmackBot is acting in good faith, SmackBot is damaging articles and needs testing and validation. SmackBot is being debugged on live articles and this must stop.

The author of SmackBot, while responsive to bug reports, is blissfully unaware of the wide-spread damage SmackBot causes. Part of the problem is that SmackBot's arbitrary changes to tags throughout an article mask subtle errors introduced by SmackBot.

If SmackBot insists upon absolute correctness, then it also must be absolutely correct in its automated edits. It must not create damaged or incorrectly-formatted tags. It must know and follow the grammar rules of all the tags it changes. Before it's re-released, SmackBot must be tested against the complete grammar of the tags it edits, not just the simplest cases.

In this change log, SmackBot has used its rule-based programming methods to make arbitrary changes to the South Korea article.

However, damaging changes cannot be excused. An example is SmackBot's removal of tag notes. While SmackBot is correct in changing 2009-02-17 to February 2009, it failed to account for the tag's grammar rule. In the process, it removed a useful editor note. SmackBot doesn't understand the grammar rules of Template:FACT and has damaged the tag.

Line 150: article:, SmackBot:

"Grammar" rule for Template:FACT:

SmackBot makes many arbitrary changes. While this optimization at line 173 is preferred, it's unnecessary.

Line 173: article: South Vietnamese, SmackBot: South Vietnamese

The arbitrary change at line 163 is an example of disruptive editing. It has no effect. SmackBot should not make this type of change.

Line 163: removal of a newline for no good reason and to no effect on the article.

I applaud SmackBot's attempt to perform date-maintenance edits. However, it must not make arbitrary changes that mask the damaging errors it may introduce. SmackBot is not yet smart enough to perform the tasks it's attempting.

--Mtd2006 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot problem
Why is the bot busy dating PD-self tags, and why is it giving them all a date of February of 2009? See for an example. --Carnildo (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

✅

and
With the edit, "Date maintenance tags and general fixes" 19:11, 25 January 2009, the bot changed the Articulated buses in London article from this version to this version, changing a dated top of article tag (tag's current version), into a dated inline  tag (tag's current version), hence leaving an inline tag oddly floating at the top of the article. I have reverted, but as I see no instability in the history of the tags, I presume this is a bot error which needs looking into, lest it come round and do the same thing again. MickMacNee (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This post has been archived - note that no reply was received for this message, and edits with the same summary have resumed, so I can only guess as to what the cause or outcome was. As it has been archived, I am no longer watching this page for a response. MickMacNee (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

STRANGE: May 2009
This silly bot just added a category: (MAY?!) SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User-created public domain images from May 2009

SmackBot problem
I think I see what's going on. It's extracting dates from the file names, while the dates in the file names are EVENT dates which could be far past or far future. I don't know the purpose of this labeling, but I don't think it's doing what it thinks! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Example: File:Lunar_eclipse_chart-03nov09.png


 * Thanks for your note. It was working on clues from the content of the fpage, but I've now switched over to use purely metadata drom the API indicating when it was categorised. Rich  Farmbrough 22:58 2  March 2009 (UTC).

SmackBot problem
This bot just seems rather crazy. Why is this image dated Feb 2009 File:58295_Orbit.jpg?! It makes no sense! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC) ✅

SmackBot adding spaces to cartridge designations
Recently, SmackBot has been adding non breaking spaces to cartridge designations. In most other contexts this would be fine, except those are cartridge designations, not actual measurements. Maybe the bot could be configured to not do this in articles with the WP:GUNS banner or something? —  Dan MP5  15:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I have seen this, althoguth I wasn;t aware it was such a problem. It is related to WP:AWB general fixes: I will bring it up sith the devlopers and measurement specialists to see what can be done. Rich  Farmbrough 10:13 4  March 2009 (UTC).

Smackbot confused by and
I love Smackbot (seriously, thank you).

I have spotted a problem, example here, that I had seen before and not recognized. The bot doesn't recognize all the variants of some of the templates, and when it fixes the date, it "fixes" the template...incorrectly. This isn't a killer, but it does have some odd effects. I think I recall seeing it happen on other section-flags, but put it down to my nonleet typing skillz.

Thanks again, and I wish you all the best! :) sinneed (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Or-section&oldid=207465329 - this was indeed redirecting to the template SB was using. Rich  Farmbrough 07:05 11  March 2009 (UTC).

Still doing it
See here. TJRC (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 09:26 18 March 2009 (UTC).

Messing with references
The bot is randomly changing the order of references without any adequate reason, see e.g.. — Emil J. 10:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see (in the first 10 minutes) in this edit they are re-arranged into numerical order, which is part of WP:AWB general fixes. Rich  Farmbrough 12:04 27  March 2009 (UTC).

SmackBot problem (removing orphan tag on still-orphaned article)
Hi, the bot is removing the orphan tag on Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, even though the page is still an orphan under the criteria listed at WP:ORPHAN. I suspect the bot is counting links from DAB pages such as CRA. TJRC (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like a bug with WP:AWB GF. Thanks. Rich  Farmbrough 12:36 27  March 2009 (UTC).

Moving distinguish
I am stopping it for the moment, here it moved a distinguish to the top of the page, while it was meant to be in the history section. I am not sure if this is a big problem, or somehow else a mistake. Could you have a look at it? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Answered on user's talk page. Rich  Farmbrough 00:37 4  April 2009 (UTC).

Source needed listed at RfD
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Source needed. Since you had some involvement with the Source needed redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). stan ley   bulgaria  06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded. Rich Farmbrough, 11:44 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Remvoing Uncat tags
STOP removing uncat tags from articles unless you categorise them. To remove them otherwise is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy (talk • contribs) 2009-06-19T09:59:05Z
 * and . The article was in a stub category, but no content categories. JackSchmidt (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * did not even have a content sorted stub tag. It is now a redirect though.
 * had a content sorted stub tag.
 * had a content sorted stub tag
 * had a content sorted stub tag
 * Probably it would be better if SmackBot changed uncat to uncatstub in these situations, per point #7 of Category:Category needed. JackSchmidt (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Answered on user's talk page. Rich  Farmbrough 13:45 19  June 2009 (UTC).

Bad bot edits
Agile Model Driven Development is but one of the articles that you are removing uncat and orphan tags while they still are uncat and orphaned. Please stop. Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad bot edits
Could you exclude Template:Infobox Kosovo War from this bot's activities (preferably quickly)? Its ruining the Kosovo War article... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot problem
i really hope you mean that "when in doubt go ahead and stop it", because i am deeply in doubt here! but please see this recent change in the name of the "citation needed" template, which means Smackbot should no longer be amending to. here's a dif to where it just did that: ; i trust it can be retrained to change those to instead, because that "fact" truly is confusing/misleading.

thanks for the bot's good work, and for keeping it well-trained! Sssoul (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)