User talk:DarknessBot

Page | Talk | Contribs | Creator | Runner

This is DarknessBot's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Remember, this is a bot, so talking casually to it is futile. ;) D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••CCD••• 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a automated to all bot operators

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! ShakingSpirit ^talk 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated message to bot owners

As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:

Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.

Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 00:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I need help renaming about 200 articles. Doing this by hand would take me all day.

Can your bot rename articles, or be adapted to do so?

If so, please contact me.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 22:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Talkpage. Since you had some involvement with the Talkpage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Telephonedennis talk 05:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirect Allan Jenkins

We are in the process of fixing up the redirects for these various pages. For your bot to step in and decide it knows best is singularly unhelpful. SimonTrew (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Double Redirect Fixes

Your bot has been fixing double redirects that aren't double redirects, and pointing them to disambiguation pages.

For example, I have seen four pages on which Xqbot fixed Nickelodeon (TV channel) (which redirects to Nickelodeon (TV network) so that it skips the interim link (an example of actually fixing a double redirect). Then your bot has come by and changed the link to Nickelodeon, which is a disambiguation page, with the comment that it is fixing an identified double redirect. So first, the bot is fixing something that isn't a double redirect, and second, it's creating a new problem by linking to a disambiguation page instead of the article that it should be (and previously was) linking to.

Here are some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened. Someone switched the pages on the 17th around 18:00 hours, and it was later reverted back around 19:00 hours. So, for that hour, Nickelodeon was the article, and Nickelodeon (TV network) was the redirect. Your bot made these four changes in that brief window. So it was doing the right thing, at the time. Sorry – it took me a little bit to figure out what was going on. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition of Kosovo

Please stop adding that deletion template to that article, it does not meet the criteria for deletion. Ijanderson (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ijanderson (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet the criteria for deletion, I have already told you this. I don't care if your a "bot", I will still report you for violation of the 3 revert rule! Ijanderson (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bot parameter on delete templates

Hi, the bot recently nominated a page for deletion, and I realised that it's not using the bot parameter (e.g. {{Db-G8|bot=DarknessBot}}). Should be easy enough to add in, when ever you have the time, please do. Thanks, and nice bot - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken redirects for speedy deletion

I was wondering if rather than doing this the bot could leave a report somewhere. The redirect was supposed to go to Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera. My concern is not with the bots operation but more that a possibly valid redirect might get deleted by a human acting too quickly when Category:Candidates for speedy deletion gets a backlog. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check into this...

Redirect fix? I mean, I am not implying that you set it up like that - but heck, is there a way to prevent the bot doing this? Maybe not. Ingolfson (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting period needed...

Can there be a waiting period or something when people make vandalism edits, your bot perpetuates them and migrates them throughout WP. Take for example: [1], where your bot redirected Fatuous to Barack Obama. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect fix

This Bot identified Grey Goo as being a double redirect since it redirected to grey goo. It attempted to fix it, but for some reason changed the redirect to URL redirection. I've changed it to properly redirect to Grey goo. I'm concerned about why this happened in case it has happened to other pages. 70.226.198.4 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found some other misdirected links URL redirection done by this bot. The reason is an accidental button keypress on the #R-Button (for redirect). I've fixed it all, see Special:Contributions/Xqt --Xqt (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Government Linked Companies, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Government Linked Companies was changed by DarknessBot (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2009-07-12T09:00:49+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Problema prinadlezhnosti Kurilskikh ostrovov. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Problema prinadlezhnosti Kurilskikh ostrovov was changed by DarknessBot (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2009-07-12T11:23:55+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted name change

Someone moved Yarlung Tsangpo River (which I created) to Yalu Tsangpo River, Yarlung Tsangpo Canyon to Yalu Tsangpo River, Talk:Yarlung Tsangpo Canyon to Talk:Yalu Tsangpo Canyon and Talk:Yarlung Tsangpo River to Talk:Yalu Tsangpo River. I did some referencing for both articles and there is no justification for changing the name. This was already done once and moved back. (See Talk:Yalu Tsangpo River.) Wikicommons uses Yarlung_Zangbo. The change is not the preferred spelling. This may be one of those ethnic spelling issues. This is an apparently new user who did not discuss on the article talk page. How to handle? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30H!3

It appears an error was made in tagging this redirect for deletion—there was a valid redirect in the page history. Best wishes to the bot and your operator, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome the darkness

I have not yet decided if I love the DarknessBot, but I love the DarknessBot's name. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DarknessBot a potential tool for vandals? -- Lesson to learn from Abu Dhabi redirects

On 26 July, 2009 an IP user put a redirect tag to Target page name at the top of the Abu Dhabi article. (This, of course, is the text inserted by the #R edit tool button.) Target page name itself, however, is a redirect to URL redirection. Thus DarknessBot, four minutes later, not only "fixed" the double redirect from Abu Dhabi, but also those from all 18 redirects to Abu Dhabi, namely Abou Dhabi, Abou-Dhabi, Abu-Zabi, Abu-Zaby, Abu-Dabi, Abu-Dhabi, Abu Dhaby, Abu Dhabi (city), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Abu Dabi, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., Abu Dabhi, Abu Zaby, Abu Zabi, Abu dhabi, Abu Ẓaby, Abû Zabi, and Alu Zaly.

The Abu Dhabi article itself was restored to its original non-redirect condition within an hour, but the damage done to the redirects by DarknessBot remained; 16 were still broken when I ran across them two weeks later.

The original edit was more likely accidental than malicious, but the result was that with three clicks of a mouse and the help of DarknessBot 18 redirects were broken below the radar. The Abu Dhabi edit itself was automatically tagged "possible test edits", but the 18 redirects were broken under the imprimatur of DarknessBot. The potential for vandalism is obvious.

Have you considered having DarknessBot watch or periodically check the original targets of double redirect fixes, and if they become articles again in the near future then revert the redirect fixes (assuming they are still the top edit) or generate a warning log entry (or both)? -- Thinking of England (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I know you will not appreciate this because you do not think or feel emotions, but I think you deserve this.

		The "Helping Random Idiots Who Can't Use Wikipedia" Barnstar
		For fixing redirects that I can't be bothered doing myself.

I've got a multitude of double-redirects in my subpages, but I know you'll get to them eventually. Enjoy! Or rather don't. Yes, I know talking like this to you is futile, but thats why I like doing it. Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 12:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VANDALISM warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Backbone of ancient greek armies (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was what the bot's meant to be doing.... ShakingSpirit ^talk 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for helping. 72.234.223.116

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created, such as with Wayback Machine, have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. This redirect is supposed to point to the article about the Internet Archive Wayback Machine not to WABAC machine. allen四names 17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awfulness should not redirect to Apple

This is an error: [2]

Hi, i was trying to get rid of the redirect page as it shows our clubs old name when someone googles "Dunston UTS FC" , Cheers Ken time 21.12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clash01 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for discussion

"Alpha Sigma Delta sorority" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Alpha Sigma Delta sorority. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 14#Alpha Sigma Delta sorority until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

I'm cleaning up a duplicate redirect, as there are two for Alpha Sigma Delta:

Alpha Sigma Delta (sorority) - the preferable one
Alpha Sigma Delta sorority - the unnecessary one, now that Lambda Omega has its own article.

This matter is up for discussion, and I'm alerting you as you had participated in creating the earlier version, long before we fully wrote out several articles for Lambda Omega and Theta Upsilon. Probably not controversial, once you look at it. Jax MN (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]