User talk:Ladsgroup/Archive 4

Latest Dexbot changes...
Ladsgroup, I notice that your Dexbot was active again last night, making this change here at 19:47, 19 December 2016, with an edit summary of "Bot: Fixing formatting per user request". At first glance it looks purely cosmetic, but I wanted to check - could you confirm what the substantive change was, as it isn't obvious to me, which user had requested it, and which BAG-authorised task this was running under? Many thanks, Hchc2009 (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, the bot does this edit once someone clicks on a link. (So it fixes some formatting) it's not automated and not being ran on large scale. Only one article per request. I did it due to request from WPMED people. Ladsgroupoverleg 13:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but could you explain what the substantive change was, and which BAG-authorised task this was running under? Many thanks. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Doc James Can you expalin to this user about this? Ladsgroupoverleg 00:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * user:Ladsgroup, you are responsible for the bot. While these other power users and wiki bigwigs are requesting tasks from you, if you can't explain what the bot is doing and under what authorisation, then either: (a) you should not be accepting these tasks; or (b) you should not be running the bot. Clearly you are a smart guy but, please, take ownership of what this thing is doing. -- Ham105 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, these edits could be simply done via a gadget but I didn't have time to write it so I did it using a service and bot that does it. It's very simple to turn it back to a gadget but it really won't matter. Ladsgroupoverleg 01:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Ham105 we at WPMED requested a tool to help use convert refs over many lines to over one line.
 * Basically one article at a time I am able to request this change.
 * I store it in my list of tools at the top here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Tools
 * You can see me editing just before I did that change. Not really a bot but a human triggered change.
 * Lads a gadget would be nice though. I could than be like one of those auto wiki people and take care of this issue across a couple of thousand articles :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. Ladsgroup: am I right then to think that:
 * The bot's change was a cosmetic one (and therefore contrary to WP:COSMETICBOT)
 * That this task hasn't been approved by the BAG? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point that it's not a bot. It's not automated, being ran on large scale or any other characteristics of a bot. The only mistake it's that I use User:Dexbot. I should've made a user called "DexNotABot" instead. Anyway, I'm turning this into a gadget. BTW. This place is toxic, wikilawyered, almost no AGF. I'm so sorry to see this. Ladsgroupoverleg 01:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Hchc2009 seriously. We are still allowed to use common sense. The goal here is to build an encyclopedia not to try to twist rules to catch up people acting in good faith to make improvements. If you have an issue with these edits, because I was the one who activated the script to make them please bring them to me. Humans are allowed to make cosmetic edits, even ones assisted by scripts. And yes I have consensus to make these changes per here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW, there already is a gadget user script for this (multiline refs -> oneline refs), I simply can't remember the title. Will try to find over holidays. -- Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 03:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I made mine now. You can enable it by adding:

To your common.js Ladsgroupoverleg 03:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doc James. I don't understand the request from WP:WPMED to change references from many lines to a single line. In this edit, it seems like the previous version was significantly easier to read and edit, at least as wikitext. Is there a benefit to smushing all the text into a single line? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it keeps the refs from taking up so much screen space in a heavily referenced article.
 * Ideally we will eventually have a gadget/tool that gives people the option of many lines, one line, or a wikidata identifier. So everyone can get the format they like. That is probably a few years out though. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that there's also an accessibility issue - not for the reader of the rendered page, whose experience is unchanged - but for the editor: newlines should not occur within paragraphs, and never within sentences, and AFAIK this applies also to newlines within the  construct. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:CITEVAR, which applies both the the appearance of references and the coding style used to achieve them. If an article uses multi-line template formatting, it should not be converted to single-line, and the reverse change should also not be made. These things are decided on an article-by-article basis. In particular, the multiline vs. single line issue is a longstanding area of disagreement, with some editors preferring one and some preferring the other. Unless WP:CITE requires single-line citations, it is inappropriate for an editor to go around converting articles based on their preference for one version or the other. This would never be approved as a bot task. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I am the primary editor on the articles in which this tool is used and the articles use single line mostly as it is, from my understanding I am in compliance with WP:CITEVAR. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

can your bot do this
A few years ago JSTOR deprecated the SICI interface. So, all these links.jstor.org links now point to a www.jstor.org/stable/##### url. Could Dexbot convert these (This would require a query to jstor, so that might be beyond its ability). If not you, then do you know a better bot? FYI: a very small number of the SICI codes end up pointing to more than one article, and those would have to be fixed by hand (not bot). Here a link to all 2500 articles https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=5000&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%22links.jstor.org%22&searchToken=9lhyhyxuh8ihv6tka6n9o8m3l   Here is an example edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Senate&type=revision&diff=758116808&oldid=758085404   AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, It's easy doable. I just need to get some time to do this. Would the weekend work for you? Ladsgroupoverleg 17:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * that's terrific AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Section names fixes
I wonder if you could take over Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 26 and do this such as this one and this one. I can provide you a full list. The naming is set by MOS:SECTIONS. It's 100% uncontroversial and 3 bots in the past were approved to do it. Since DexBot already does section header fixes maybe it's time to pass this task there and run it on daily basis. The task can standardize the following sections: -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See also
 * References
 * Further reading
 * External links

My search is for things like insource:/== *Weblinks *==/. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, do you have any source available so I can look up and follow the algorithm? I'll do it completely if you give a super clear objectives :) Thanks Ladsgroupoverleg 17:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can check FixHeadings.cs in AWB's source code. The main idea is to rename level 2 section headers as following:
 * see also|related topics|related articles|internal links|also see with See also
 * external links?|external sites?|outside links?|web ?links?|exterior links? with External links
 * reff?e?rr?en[sc]es? with References
 * Further Reading with Further reading

-- Magioladitis (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Superb, I'll write it this weekend and I'll make a RfBA that time. Thanks! Ladsgroupoverleg 17:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Cosmetic edits
Hi Ladsgroup, edits such as this seem to violate COSMETICBOT. They make no difference to the reader, and there is no consensus to use only templates to display official websites. WP:ELOFFICIAL says: "Use of the template official website is optional."

Is there any benefit to adding a template? SarahSV (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, IIRC We are doing it because we are migrating them to Wikidata so we would have a centralized place to keep and control them. It's super useful but not in the first glance. Ladsgroupoverleg 23:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Stalking pages - is there somewhere spelled out for the steps that are being used for this migration? (e.g. step one, convert to this template; step 2 load to wikidate; step 3 update the template again?) —  xaosflux  Talk 23:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec, replying to Ladsgroup) Hi, thanks for the reply, which I'm afraid I didn't understand. Can you explain?


 * If you want to make those edits on a large scale, you need to gain community consensus, because at the moment the guideline says: "Use of the template official website is optional." The best place to ask would be at the village pump. Or has there been a discussion like that already? SarahSV (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, I was asked to do this so I thought there is a bigger plan and I can help out. I'm not aware of the details. There has been a plan to migrate such data to Wikidata. So later we remove the argument (like Template:Commons category) and use the data in Wikidata instead. It would make these data usable across all other projects (all languages and projects like Wikiquote, etc.). So this is minor change in English Wikipedia but a rather big one for others. Ladsgroupoverleg 00:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ladsgroup, I'm not aware of any consensus to do that; in fact, it's contentious, unless things have changed since I last checked. One of the reasons is that someone could vandalize (or just make a mistake with) the template on Wikidata, and that would spread throughout the project, but without showing up on watchlists. I think you definitely need to gain consensus somewhere. Who asked you to do it? SarahSV (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the same could be said about Wikimedia Commons and we use commons despite that. Also, unlike commons, you have an option in your watchlist to show any change in wikidata in articles you watched. (Just search for Wikidata in your watchlist page). And also unlike commons, Wikidata has a rather good system to fight vandalism called ORES (which is more accurate than its counterpart in English Wikipedia). Regarding the discussion about it. I think it happened in the talk page of Template:Official website but I'm not sure. I remember vaguely that a discussion like that happened but can't remember the details. Anyway, Marios asked me to do it. Ladsgroupoverleg 00:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but people don't want to have to watchlist Wikidata. The issue here is whether it has consensus. Bot tasks shouldn't be approved for contentious issues. If you want to continue with it, the best thing is to open a discussion on Village pump (proposals). SarahSV (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a small comment. Sarah, you really can not on one hand complain that "somone could vandalize the template on Wikidata ... but without showing up on watchlists" and then when you are told how to include it on your watchlist say "people don't want to have to watchlist Wikidata". &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin, in every discussion I've seen about this, people have expressed reluctance to watchlist a second project so that they can monitor textual changes to articles they're editing. And not only watchlist it; they would have to edit it too if something untoward were added. It's a lot to ask.


 * But regardless of that, the issue here is respecting consensus and the bot policy. The question of Wikidata-enabled infoboxes is contentious on the English Wikipedia. Here we have a Wikidata developer and employee of Wikimedia Deutschland being asked to do this by Magioladitis, who then approves the bot task himself, even though the guideline says using a template is optional.


 * Bot policy: "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it ... performs only tasks for which there is consensus [and] carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines". SarahSV (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I need to clarify several stuff: 1- I'm not a WMDE employee. I'm hired by them as contractor. 2- Even if I was employee, I didn't do this in my working capacity. I've been migrating data to Wikidata since its emergence and long before I get hired by WMDE (my bot has 23 million edits there). 3- Moving data to official website template has lots and lots of benefits. It helps us find inconsistencies between Wikipedia and Wikidata (so we would know if someone vandalizes English Wikipedia). We can query these data, use it in infoboxes, check for possible mistakes much more easier. This is not a cosmetic edit.
 * What I did wasn't mentioned in policies and guidelines but wasn't against them either. Use common sense and ignore please. If you're against moving data to Wikidata, that's another issue. You are free to start an RfC to stop using Wikidata data but We already moved and deprecated PERSONDATA template, moved authority control data, and tons of other things. It was just a trivial thing among lots of other things to do. Ladsgroupoverleg 15:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

, I see you've resumed the task. Please stop. SarahSV (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It was in crontab, stopped for now until we reach an agreement Ladsgroupoverleg 15:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for stopping. We did have an RfC about Wikidata-enabled infoboxes, which showed no consensus for it. See Village pump (policy)/Archive 128. In my view, it showed a majority were against it, but unfortunately the person who closed it did so unclearly, so it has left us not knowing. Certainly consensus in favour wasn't demonstrated.


 * Regardless of that, I'd prefer not to mix up the substantive issue with that of bots and consensus in general. We have a problem in general with bot tasks being approved even though they violate the guidelines. Can you not simply ask on the PUMP if the community wants this? They may say yes or may not care one way or the other, in which case it'll be fine. I will ask on the guideline talk page whether people have there have views about this. Perhaps you are right and no one will mind. SarahSV (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Amir, I asked at Wikipedia talk:External links whether anyone was likely to mind, and the suggestion was to open an RfC on that page. Instructions at WP:RfC. Please explain in the RfC request what the bot does. You said: "It also handles title part too", so please explain if you're adding the template to somewhere other than External links. I realize this will mean a delay for you, but if you get consensus it means you can go ahead with no further concern. SarahSV (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Noting that the discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:External links, and a comment was left at External links/Noticeboard. SarahSV (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2 (May 2013). -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA
Your BRFA, Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 11 has been approved. Please see the final closing notes. Happy editing, — xaosflux  Talk 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ladsgroupoverleg 09:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Dexbot 10
Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 10 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.
 * Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 10 has been approved. Happy editing, —  xaosflux  Talk 03:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ladsgroupoverleg 03:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent work so far. Post when you are done.  I will then manually fix the stupid ones that point to a journal issue instead of a specific article AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's already done, if there are lots of cases, please let me know to check what's wrong. Ladsgroupoverleg 05:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are over a thousand left https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=5000&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%22links.jstor.org%22&searchToken=84yj1pd47qrv2gkf5ue12ppzm But, many of them are like this one:


 * Hilton, R.H., The Origins of Robin Hood, Past and Present, No. 14. (Nov. 1958), pp. 30–44. Available online at JSTOR.

They point to over a dozen articles, since SICI is technically a search. But, these pages has one that your bot missed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction (This one is within a quote strangely)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johannes_Brahms&action=edit (this one redirects to doi, and not a stable)

One more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal

AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's because of the pipe issue. The bot would just skip them. I made it to understand it now. Ladsgroupoverleg 16:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that is done. There are about 500 that do not uniquely specify a journal :-(   I will fix those over time by hand.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you think you could similarly convert these http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1068720901&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1246568407&clientId=17862 to the more stable http://search.proquest.com/docview/222244908/ URL (Some of them have /fulltextPDF on the end) AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm super busy these days. I can pick it up in two weeks. please remind me if I forget. Ladsgroupoverleg 05:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I just manually finished getting rid of the last of the old JSTOR links. Having only a couple hundred instead of several thousand made is really easy.   Thank you.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Future things to do pss and discover and yet another SICI interface:

JSTOR has had so many interfaces over the years. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Convert http://www.jstor.org/pss/3003013 links to http://www.jstor.org/stable/3003013
 * 2) Convert http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4495530?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103086564553 to http://www.jstor.org/stable/4495530
 * 3) Convert http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4649%281969%29173%3A1031%3C235%3ATPOBAG%3E2.0 to http://www.jstor.org/stable/75817

A beer for you!

 * Thanks :) Ladsgroupoverleg 16:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:New Scientist 6 Feb 2010.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:New Scientist 6 Feb 2010.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Query
Could you clarify what this approval seeks to accomplish? Does it produce any rendered change on the page? Does it change any categorization, etc.? I'm not seeing any consensus discussion supporting the task. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Rob continues their wikihounding against bots and their owners. Be careful, Rob is a person who already wrote that the will everything to stop bots from editing. Rob already harassed bot owners. They obviously know about the discussion about this task already. Its only another of their tricks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how to respond to that. I certainly will do everything to ensure bots have consensus to operate. Asking a bot operator a couple questions about their bot isn't a "trick"; it's a transparent attempt to understand what's going on with an approval I don't know the background behind. I'm a bot operator myself, so a claim that I have some hidden endgame of preventing bots from editing is a bit insane, no? ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe you've been busy, Ladsgroup, but could you comment on this when you have a chance? Thanks. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I believe we talked about this more than enough (you can find it in archive of my talk page). I would be happy to explain more if you can convince a BAG member that this needs more explanation. One BAG member is enough. Ladsgroupoverleg 05:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to locate any discussion related to this specific task in your archive, but perhaps I'm missing it. Could you point me in the correct direction? ~ Rob 13 Talk 10:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

DexBot task 6
I have just closed the discussion regarding Dexbot's Task 6, with the outcome that this task is no longer approved. You are welcome to re-file a BRFA for the task, and/or start a community discussion to determine if an official website template should be used in preference to a standard external link. If you have any questions please let me know. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

DexBot
FYI. With an automated edit of the Hayao Miyazaki article the following was deleted in its entirety: Tetsuji Fukushima. Thus, not only (Bot: Cleaning up old interwiki links) but deleting the named individual completely from the article in the process as well. That was probably not the objective of this DexBot operation. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hayao_Miyazaki&diff=prev&oldid=784249422 Verso.Sciolto (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that's obvious Garbage in, Garbage out. Tetsuji Fukushima won't be shown as a link in articles and mess up everything. Ladsgroupoverleg 01:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you to rephrase your response to include if and how you're going to address situations like that? Can the DexBot's script / instructions be rewritten so that the removal of an interlanguage wikilink -either properly or improperly formatted- won't result in the deletion of the name of the person or item linked as well as a result of cleaning up edit by DexBot? Perhaps have the bot output a different edit summary when it encounters an entry it can't fix?
 * The name Tetsuji Fukushima disappeared completely from the sentence in the Hayao Miyazaki article after that edit. Even if an outdated wiki link has no place in an article this is still a tale of babies and bathwater, isn't it? Therefore... ::Shouldn't the DexBot ideally be instructed to modify rather than delete such an outdated entry or not touch it if it encounters an anomaly rather than delete the entire entry?
 * This is the sentence from the article after the bot edit: "Miyazaki was influenced by several manga artists, such as, Soji Yamakawa and Tezuka etc..."
 * Preferably that would have read: "Miyazaki was influenced by several manga artists, such as Tetsuji Fukushima, Soji Yamakawa and Tezuka etc..." after the bot passed through.
 * Ideally, the intended interlanguage link to the German article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Tetsuji, about Tetsuji Fukushima would have been adjusted by the bot operation, to conform to current wiki link formatting.
 * Something like: Fukushima Tetsuji or Tetsuji Fukushima
 * I've manually restored the name and wikilinked to the Japanese article for this person, Tetsuji Fukushima, so the issue no longer exists in the Hayao Miyzaki article, but the bot's behaviour may have implications for other ::articles. Is this the right place to request changes to the instructions for DexBot to prevent recurrence? Perhaps you've already addressed this but I don't know bot error related protocols.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The solution is Mediawiki to disactivate interwiki links completely. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That is not a solution because even in the aftermath of such a decision to deactivate interlanguage linking altogether -unlikely and undesirable- if this bot were to run on the same "clean up" instructions it currently utilises it would result in the same erroneous actions. An automated edit which resulted in the removal of not just the outdated "link" but the deletion of the name of the person referenced in the text as well. Do you have any other ideas for the prevention of recurrence of this undesirable behaviour by this bot, Ladsgroup?Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Dexbot on article Cheyenne Frontier Days
Your Dexbot made a correction to the headings on the Cheyenne Frontier Days article citing WP:MOSHEAD. I went and read that section and could not find anything in it to support the change. However, I did find this guideline instead that very clearly backs up the change: WP:BADHEAD. This source lays out clearly, with visual aids, that headings need to be used sequentially, without skipping any as I did in the article. Just thought you'd like to know. Thanks. dawnleelynn (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, Thanks! User:Magioladitis: What do you think? Ladsgroupoverleg 11:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The same is somwhat said in the first line of MOSHEAD. I think it's a good idea adding the BADHEAD link to the edit summary too though. Accessibility issues are described better in BADHEAD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Confusing user name
Hi, where is the request concerning ? The user name is a single character, which in Opera 36 displays as a plain rectangle. Potential problems like that were brought up some six months earlier at Village pump (technical)/Archive 151. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See this RFC that narrowly supported that specific change. — xaosflux  Talk 10:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Bad edit
This bot mangled a url in Hermsdorf-Klosterlausnitz station "(WP:CHECKWIKI error fix. Section heading problem. Violates WP:MOSHEAD.)". Please bring it under control.--Grahame (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

BOT erroneous edit
Hi, appears to be a problem with the BOT fixing section headers. In this edit it picked the = sign that is part of a reference template and thought that it was a heading. I have reverted the change. Keith D (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I fixed manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Error Section Heading
Hello, it is maybe possible that the Bot fixing makes errors with the Section Heading on the year pages. It fixed the = sign that is reverted from four to three = signs. I have changed this, because it is maybe a Section Heading problem. Also it said: "Violates WP:MOSHEAD". Please can you bring this BOT error under control. Peters01 (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean ? The bot was correct: the heading immediately preceding is  which is level 2. A level 2 heading cannot be followed by a level 4 heading like   since this causes accessibility problems. A level 2 heading may be followed only by a level 2 or level 3 heading; a level 4 heading may only be preceded by a level 3, 4, 5 or 6 heading. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Redrose, when the Bot is correct, then we must change all the year pages. But i see now why the Bot has corrected the Section Heading, the page is missing a level 3 heading (By place). Thanks for your reply. Peters01 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=3dz0m2ubQw1KSnb_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_dg3F4q2xNTtXr5r&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done Ladsgroupoverleg 21:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Helping the vandals do their work
Sigh. I was trying to track down how a large hole was punched in an article and "no one noticed". It turns out Dexbot was helping 'hide' the vandalism.

'Vandal' came in and did bad things to article Names of China with these edits. Another user then tried to revert those edits, but got only some of them, resulting in section headers being deleted.

A half day later Dexbot came in and 'fixed' things, thus hiding much of the obvious disturbance in the force. And the result is that the damage, the text removal, is still present in the article. The vandalism was made permanent.

A cautionary tale here, and another example of why bot actions unreviewed are always going to cause problems, even if the continued pleading is made that the rates are 'low'. Shenme (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Answered at Bots/Noticeboard. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

checkwiki Toolforge maintainer addition
Hi, would you be willing to add me as a maintainer to the checkwiki tool? Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia, there does not appear to be anybody maintaining it and the enwiki and frwiki jobs are in infinite loops for 2 months. Bgwhite has left Wikipedia and Magioladitis is taking a wikibreak. I am leaving the same message for Tim Landscheidt. I am an experienced developer and run several bots/tools. --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, User:Bamyers99. I added you there, let me know if you encounter any problems. Ladsgroupoverleg 15:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Fighting vandalism tool
Hi Ladsgroup, Is it possible to create as for changed descriptions, a watchlist for labels and another one for Also known as in Arabic. And finally one for the three of them. Thank you very much. That tool needs to be populated for all languages. If you want you can also translate the content (Username: مستخدم / Edit summary : ملخص التعديل / Editnumber : فارق التعديل) --Helmoony (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Dexbot changed header
Have a look at the history of Hennepin (shipwreck). Dexbot changed the header, but doesn't fix the error. Perhaps you could improve Dexbot. Regards --GünniX (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * History of Richmond, Virginia shows another situation, which Dexbot can't handle. --GünniX (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They're headings, not headers (headers are the boxes sometimes found at the top of a page). The problem with these headings was an imbalance between the number of equals signs before and after the heading text. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Classmate Comment
Looks great guys. Tons of information, sourced well. I was hard pressed to find anything to recommend you do as it is already so well done. However, I suggest you slightly alter the history section. specifically the part before the United Nations section. I think it could be improved by adding citations within the paragraph and not just at the end. I think after the "says Lutfullah" would be a prime spot to cite Lutfullah. I would consider either losing or altering the line "although it was hindered powerless by the growing rise of Hitlers military power." It kind of doesn't fit and is a bit off topic. If you decide to keep it I would make "Hitlers" possessive as well. In addition I think there are a few more opportune spots to insert a link to another wiki article. You guys have been killing it with those already but I think there are even more you could do. I would add a link to the UNODA page, for example. Maybe for DPRK as well. You guys are doing great.

Here are those links I recommended in case you want them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Office_for_Disarmament_Affairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zparker777 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:علی پیرحیاتی


A tag has been placed on User:علی پیرحیاتی requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"Redirects to nonexistant page"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 03:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Stopping Dexbot on an article
Hi Ladsgroup.

How do I stop Dexbot messing around with the article List of former cantons of France !? Please see the history for my attempts to-date. Regards. Eno Lirpa (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, please read WP:MOSHEAD Ladsgroupoverleg 12:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes twice now. Where does it talk about headings in tables at all, and even so, having a "==" heading inside a table is not necessary.  So how do I stop the bot ?  Eno Lirpa (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in the "For example, headers of tables (and of table columns and rows) " area. 🤔 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That refers to text content and other things. I can see nothing about section headings, regardless of level, in tables ?   Eno Lirpa (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision descriptions
I note that Dexbot is misspelling 'aligning' in revision descriptions, such as here. PriceDL (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for notifying me. It's fixed now. Ladsgroupoverleg 12:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Avoid edits in references
I reverted your bot's edit because it broke the reference formatting. Please avoid edits inside references. They are not hadings and they break the reference formatting. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC) If we look at the code, the correct reference coding used and the incorrect reference coding used {{cite web|url
 * I reverted your bot again here for the same bad edits. I suggest you fix the issues in the bot. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is a really bad practice to put == at start of the line, no matter in  tag or not. You should move it to the previous line. Ladsgroupoverleg 23:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You made that great tool for me that condenses refs over one line. Maybe you need to run that first before your bots next job :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is what I do. It is bad practice which is why I move it to the previous line. I don't just revert it. See . I also correct it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your bot is also messing headings like it did here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * However, your bot is getting it wrong. You are right that it is incorrect to put = at the beginning of the line even if it is a reference however your bot gets it wrong. Does your bot use AWB or an automatic script? Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For example:  would work but   wouldn't work.

http://www.wikipedia.org|title
example|date=14 February 2018|access-date=14 February 2018}}. This is what Dexbot is doing. It is adding == when the = is at the beginning of the line. It is Okay because we all make mistakes and AGF is important to make sure they don't happen again. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

To me this is a clear case GIGO and it's so rare that I can't adjust a complex script to get around this problem. I think a BAG member should chime in and comment. Ladsgroupoverleg 00:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You rang? This appears to be an edge case to me, but would a simple fix be to only convert ='s to =='s when there is also a preceding line break? — xaosflux  Talk 01:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The best fix for me is to delete a line and then the equal sign will be in the correct place. It is incorrect to make reference syntax as a heading. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am denying your bot from editing Financial accounting. I have reverted your edits twice because your bot is messing the references in that article. There is nothing wrong with the headings in this article so it is not a CHECKWIKI fix and in fact, it is a false positive. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Dexbot
Edit comments left by Dexbot could be worded less harshly. Words like "error" and "violates" are a bit bitey.

Instead of WP:CHECKWIKI error fix. Section heading problem. Violates WP:MOSHEAD.)

How about: Updating section header to sentence case per WP:MOSHEAD

instead?

--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of bots -and even some admins- do this. I can't see why making these sound 'kinder' would be important in the context of making layouts comply to other com guidelines. On another note, 'error' seems legitimate to me and 'violates' clearly shows the guideline to be respected to editors unfamiliar with it. With all courtesy, Double Plus Ungood (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

For Summoning a Robot Angel

 * Thank you :) Ladsgroupoverleg 07:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Tool wdvd "Wikidata Vandalism dashboard"
Hi! I hope I found the owner of this tool :-) First of all: It is fine!

But there is one small issue: When a user changes the title of a entity to something useful, like "London" to "Paris" you will not recognize this on the page. Since the column "Entity title" shows the same information ("Paris") like the column "Edit summary" which would show "Changed label in de: Paris". I think, it would a good idea to show in "Entity Title" the label before that change was done (in my Example "London"). --Wurgl (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks. I personally would say, please make an issue in gtihub so we don't forget about it and we can implement it ASAP. Ladsgroupoverleg 21:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

FA question
Hi there, I saw that you are an ambassador for fa on meta and I was wondering if you could help me with something. We have a globally locked sock who created a lot of self-promo and potential hoaxes. One of the socks heavily edited fa:مجید_موقر on fa.wp and created Majid Movaghar on en. It was prodded as the sources don't appear to make any mention of this individual but since it's written in Farsi, I don't feel confident enough in translation to make a declaration one way or another. The same source is used on the fa article which again, was heavily edited by and on en by. Could you possibly shed some light on this? The master in this case is. Thanks! CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  14:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, This verifies content of the article and the source is website of the Iranian parliament. I'm not sure about the picture though. Ladsgroupoverleg 22:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Dexbot processing of List of poets incomplete
Hello, it seems like Dexbot has a problem fixing the section structure of this list. It manages the level 3 and level 4 headers in the "A"-related sections just fine, but stops before doing similar fixes to the level 3 header "B" and all following sections (see edit history). Could you have a look at this situation please? Thank you in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Bot activity on the Dutch Wikipedia
Dear,

Your bot account hasn't made any edits on the Dutch Wikipedia for at least three years. In accordance with the local bot policy the bot flag will be removed in three months. To avoid losing the bot flag, you can confirm you want to retain the bot flag by going to this page.

With kind regards, Kippenvlees1 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Newcastle Art Gallery
Hello. I noticed you've just renamed an account I blocked earlier today for a promotional username, being Newcastle Art Gallery. Their choice of new username is. The username policy is clear that usernames should not be related to a "real-world" group or organization and should identify as being a single editor, not a group. I feel this choice of new username is still in violation of the username policy and should not be considered acceptable. -- Longhair\talk 06:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, "NagAus" doesn't convey "Newcastle Art Gallery" or I'm missing the context. That's the reason I accepted the rename. You can keep them blocked if you think it's a group that is editing. Ladsgroupoverleg 06:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In my view their choice of new username still denotes an organisation, albeit initials only. I need to head offline for a moment just now but that's my reading of policy on this matter. Thanks for your fast reply. I'll be back online in just over an hour or so. -- Longhair\talk 06:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I read the guidelines on naming conventions, and I'm just trying to find a middle ground in terms of a naming convention that does not represent me, but also does not overtly denote the organisation I work for, which is local government owned and funded. I'm coming from a professional position where my employer owns the copyright of anything produced by me as an employee - so the words I write aren't necessarily my own point of view and they are not owned by me. I don't mind what my username is, but I don't think it is appropriate that it use my personal name in any way. 202.43.81.3 (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello . Using your real name is not a requirement. For example, anyname at xyz organisation is acceptable per the username policy. I use a nickname myself and that's served me fine all this time. If you have any further questions on acceptable usernames feel free to ask at my talk page or reply here if that's ok with Ladsgroup for the conversation to remain. -- Longhair\talk 07:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * , may I also take this opportunity to ask you to read over the information at WP:COI, WP:PAID and WP:PROMO. While I am not accusing you of editing in a promotional manner, I'd like you to become aware of what editing an article that you're closely connected to involves thanks. You must disclose any conflicts of interests if they apply. -- Longhair\talk 07:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * , to be unblocked, you'll need to add the text to your account talk page (the account that is blocked) for another administrator to review the block I've imposed earlier thanks. -- Longhair\talk 07:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra info particularly on disclosures. Being new to this platform it can be hard to navigate 202.43.81.3 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent renaming
Hi, I just noticed that you renamed user Nagualdesign in Renamed user g5r8c5h8j5g2f55v5h2h5g5d2s2c5b5. Does it make sense? For instance, on it.wiki we'll directly block such a quite vandalic username. -- Ruthven ( msg ) 13:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, User:Ruthven I renamed it per WP:RTV and specially the first bullet point in Courtesy_vanishing. Does it make sense to you? Ladsgroupoverleg 13:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It sounded like something like it. Generally I used renaming with OTRS ticket number for such cases or something less long. Thanks for your answer. Cheers -- Ruthven ( msg ) 13:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Dexbot error: section heading
Hi. I just saw that a section of my edit violated WP:MOSHEAD. Would you be able to suggest what needs to be corrected as I cannot see anything wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.Gustaveflaubert (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The word "non-violent"
Hi. Thanks a lot for your edit. But the adjective "non-violent" is extremely important in that context, as it is at the center of Farhad's activities. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by SohrabeSalek (talk • contribs) 22:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, User:SohrabeSalek. Please stop, I like to improve the article but the word doesn't make sense in English, human right activsts are non-violent by default and if you want to convey that they are acting in a peacful manner, there are way better ways to describe that. Ladsgroupoverleg 22:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Minim (unit)
Please see recent history of Minim (unit) where the bot has made unconstructive edits.Ehrenkater (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will try to find out what's wrong there Ladsgroupoverleg 19:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Supply management (Canada)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your October 1 edit to Supply management (Canada) has unintentionally added an extra = to the I have reverted the most recent edit and previous edits <ref name="thestar" Your edit summary: "(WP:CHECKWIKI error fix. Section heading problem. Violates WP:MOSHEAD.)"Oceanflynn (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that it's making too many mistakes, I just stopped the bot. Ladsgroupoverleg 22:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

My name in Ladsgroup/spam page?
Hi Amir,

Nice to meet you, a Wikipedian. I didn't expect my name in ["Ladsgroup/spam"]. What's up with that? Is that something bad?

Praveentech (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, this is list of potenial spammings that happen by removing a dead link and putting the spammy links. It was just list of removed dead links that other review, most of them are not spam. Ladsgroupoverleg 22:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

File:LinkGA-10px.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LinkGA-10px.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Redirect user
Hi Ladsgroup, Greetings. I have noticed that you have redirect User:Samuel JJ to User:ApollyonX - see HERE]. May I know the reason of the redirect as the user has requested for CVUA program on my talk page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Hey, I didn't redirect it, I moved the user (as a global renamer) due to the user request Ladsgroupoverleg 20:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)