User talk:Harej/Archive12

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Harej. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hm?

Did you quit, or...? DS (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Quit what? harej 22:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I was worried that you seemed to have stopped editing after that ombox incident. I would hate to lose a fellow admin over an overreaction to something so trivial. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

CFR

commons:Category:Code of Federal Regulations --evrik ^(talk) 05:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of War on Terrorisim

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools

Will you please look into why this bot blanked Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools, please? TerriersFan (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No reason why the bot should have even edited that page. If the bot behavior repeats, please let me know. harej 05:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Just seeing how you're doing...

Haven't seen you on IRC lately, just curious about whatcha doin'. Bumm13 (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing fine, slightly better since IRC is no longer distracting me. Some time off is good. harej 05:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot is picking up move requests which have been closed.

An example (as at edit at 05:47, 22 March 2010 by User:SE KinG of page Wikipedia:Requested moves/current) is "Discuss — Independent Evangelical-Lutheran Church → Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church — the hyphen makes no sense in English. --Mk4711 (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)" in the backlog section. Its discuss link points to Talk:Independent Evangelical-Lutheran Church, although this is now a redirect to Talk:Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church, where this move discussion has clearly been closed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you forgotten about ...

... Talk:Ram Loevy/GA1. Second opinions have been sitting there for a month. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thamesbeat

I think OneBot removed my listing of the above article[diff]. If so, not sure why.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

One bot glitch

Not sure what happened here; you may want to take a look. Owen× ☎ 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot has been taken down pending investigation. harej 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Einsidler/Some argue

FYI, I am strongly considering taking your decision to DRV. Can you give me a convincing explanation, please, as to why I should not? I see one argument made by a dissenter which is poorly based in policies, then a WP:PERNOM (or really, PERJOE) and a WP:VAGUEWAVE, none of which addressed the issue that this looks pretty clearly like a copyvio. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

None of the commentators agreed with the nomination. Take it to deletion review if you wish. harej 01:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Advice regarding the possible renaming of an article

Hello Harej

I took a look at the Requested moves page and saw your name there repeatedly so I thought that you might be the right guy to ask regarding matters such as these.

There is an article called "Icelandic debt repayment referendum 2010" but the referendum is more commonly known as "The Icesave referendum". I have attempted to discuss the matter with other users editing the article but it appears that only two other editors are interested in the article and they seem to be more concerned with Hollandic nationalism than they are with the article having its correct name.

Could you possibly give me your opinion on the proposed name change and which course of action it would be preferable to take regarding the matter?

Thanks --Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about this, but I suspect that "The IceSave Referendum" is more of a nickname than the proper name, and in the absence of proper names we have titles like "Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010". Note the comma, by the way. harej 17:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

bot

hello, I'm an wikipedian from he wiki. I'd like to know, do you know c#? מתניה (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No. PHP is my language of choice. harej 19:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC bot bug/suggestion/other (?)

There's no way you could've predicted this problem and there aren't too many instances where it will actually be a problem, but I thought I'd let you know anyway.

If you take a look at my signature code you'll see that my date stamp is formatted and requires a closing font tag after it. The RFC bot, when copying the opening RFC message to the RFC subpage, cuts off everything after the poster's date stamp. So, my closing font tag doesn't make it through, and everything on the RFC page below my signature gets its font formatting. See here for an example.

There are a few other users with sigs like this, but it's admittedly rare. For myself I have just been editing my sig code to remove the formatting when starting RFCs. So, not the biggest deal in the world, but letting you know anyway. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:13, 17 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Bot is not picking up a move request

Not sure what the problem is, but I posted a move request for Compact Disc Digital Audio a while ago and it hasn't shown up at WP:RM. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot removing unfulfilled requests

Your bot continues to remove "I'm Back (song) → "I'm Back" and Young Jeezy → Jeezy. Can you look at this to see if it is a mistake? SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 13:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Follow the directions on Wikipedia:Requested moves. You cannot edit the list directly. harej 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

CZ 52

ČZ 52 move request was deleted from page did I do something wrong?--Ducha mps_comb MFA 21:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the directions on Wikipedia:Requested moves. You cannot edit the list directly. harej 22:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

RM bot doesn't like pages containing "Talk"

Looks like RM bot doesn't like pages with the word "Talk" in or perhaps starting with it, and strips them out erroneously. Just a heads-up. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I'm a really shitty programmer :) I'll see what I can do. Good thing these situations are rare. harej 19:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

One Bot

Your bot inexplicably removed my comment to a renaming discussion and marked it as a minor edit. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

RM bot and multiple-page move requests

{{Move-multi}} supports up to twenty page moves at a time, but in a recent request at Talk:Amphoe Ban Fang the bot didn't seem to catch all the proposed pages. The same seemed to also happen with Talk:Outline of Åland#Requested move and possibly others as well. Is there something wrong? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 06:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The built-in limit is 20 because that's just what I got around to implementing. I did not think people would need more than 20, but there is a way around it. harej 14:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I meant that the bot only picked up nine of the twenty proposals. The rest weren't tagged or listed on WP:RM. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 14:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That is quite unusual. I will look into it. harej 14:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just found out that it did the same with these two moves (9 out of 20 and 7 out of 19)

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Also picked out Talk:Outline of Åland - wild suggestion - is some variable only able to store 0-9 - so that at 10 it zeros itself? Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider that likely. harej 02:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a wild guess, I know what can happen with fixed length fields. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

RM bot

Seems to have ground to a halt again. 16 hours so far. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it is down again. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Down for a different reason. The usual reason is that some guy does something which displeases the bot and I don't have good error handling. This new situation actually affects every single one of my bots. All of my bots will be done until my meta-code, botclasses.php, is fixed. harej 02:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC:Biographies bot doesn't seem to be updating

I posted a RFC in the biographies category some time ago, but it doesn't seem to be posting. The RFC tag is on the talk page here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Peter_James_Bethune Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the above section. harej 19:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC bot

Hi Harej, Either RFC bot isn't working, or I have done something wrong. I tried to set up an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The tag appeared fine but it doesn't seem to have been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yaris678 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just seen the posts above. I will remove the RfC from the page until the bot is working. I don't trust myself to do it correctly by hand. Yaris678 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot removing comment

Stop your bot continuing to remove my comment. [1] [2] --Devinn (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to edit the entry itself on the talk page. The requested move list is simply a passive relay of that which is said on the talk pages. harej 01:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 9

What happened here? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Error report

The bot misbehaves if the (section title of the section containing the move request) contains a wikilink. E.g. a move request was in a section headed ==Talk:Aala Hazrat#Move article to [[Ahmed Raza Khan]]==; this as the discuss link in Wikipedia:Requested moves produced [[Talk:Aala Hazrat#Move article to [[Ahmed Raza Khan]]|Discuss]], with nested wikilink brackets. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've noticed. Maybe I should get around to fixing that. harej 18:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Full-date Unlinking bot did exactly what it was supposed to.

rm comment; apparently I can't read. Riffraffselbow (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was worried for a second because I haven't operated the bot in a long time. harej 18:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC bot again

The bot won't let me removed that the CC RfC is closed. [3] Also, it added several different versions of it, including commentary. Help would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to remove the {{rfctag}} from the talk page itself. harej 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, done it. I have another question. If someone posts an RfC that isn't worded neutrally (for example) and it needs to be fixed, what's the best way to do that? It used to be that the wording could just be adjusted, but with the bot overriding things, I'm not sure how best to approach it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there's some concern about the RfC process not working, or not being clear. Would you mind responding? Discussion here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

User RFCs are completely outside my scope. harej 15:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As for your question on RFCs which are not neutrally worded: I do not know if this is accepted practice or not, but an option is possibly writing a new summary above the current one but below the RFC tag. You could sign it with five tildes instead of four, making it a "personless" statement that others could edit without being chastised for changing people's comments. It would look like this:

{{rfctag|xxx}}

New summary, which is not attributed to anyone. 02:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The original comment which served as the summary but was criticized for being biased. --Some guy 02:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't know if that is accepted practice, but it would work. harej 02:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

@Some guy, see the RfC talk page for a discussion on this specific topic. The strategy that you propose has been used previously, but note (i) editing the OP is against policy, so you need to insert as you suggest; (ii) please seek consensus in preparing your alternative text, otherwise you will promote an edit war on the RfC phrasing. -- TerryE (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to make sure, you know that "Some guy" is a dummy username I made up, right? harej 20:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

RM bot error at Talk:To Catch a Thief (film)

A move discussion was started at the above page with regards to articles To Catch a Thief (film) and To Catch a Thief. Since the discussion was started at Talk:To Catch a Thief (film), I think the bot meant to place a notification on Talk:To Catch a Thief but it keeps placing it incorrectly and unnecessarily at Talk:To Catch a Thief (film) ([4], [5]). Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Third notification. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed it. "current1" has to be the article where the discussion is taking place. harej 21:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

RM bot down?

Last edit at 19:31, April 18, 2010. --Lambiam 14:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move template

Would it be possible to change {{Requested move}} to the following code:

{{movereq|{{{1}}}}}

[[{{subst:ARTICLESPACE}}:{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] → {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{1}}}|?|{{{1}}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifexist:{{{1}}}|{{noredirect|1={{{1}}}}}|[[{{{1}}}]]}}}} —

This coding would check if the new proposed page name actually exists, and if so wrap it into a {{noredirect}}. If it doesn't, it will just link it. As you can see in the current discussions, many proposed new page names are a redirect to the old title, and the usual internal link is then misleading. If the page is no redirect, then this option won't hurt anyone. The template is also used in {{RMassist}}, a similar template. I just want to make sure that I don't break your bot with this edit, so please let me know if this can be done or not. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the code, it would not. Please proceed. harej 16:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the information. I applied the change, if it doensn't work anymore, feel free to revert it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

User:GA bot transcluding GA reviews

When transcluding GA reviews, please don't use {{/GA1}}. Instead, spell out the entire review, like {{Talk:Example/GA1}}. The reason is so that when the review is moved to an archive page like [[Talk:Example/Archive 1]], the link will still work. Gary King (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Noted. harej 18:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

RM bot - failure to notify all multiple move request talk pages.

As reported back in April, RMbot is still only doing half the talk pages in a 20 page requested move, I've just seen this bunch...

Would it be better to limit the move-multi template to 10 pages at a time, until the bot can be fixed? Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Relist

I don't understand. This edit appears to change it so that all relisted things are invariably sorted under "Relist", as opposed to whatever their AFD subpage name is. Or am I reading it wrong? harej 14:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>" there. Thank you for pointing this out to me, harej. Is it better now? --PFHLai (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It was an attempt to improve sorting at Category:Relisted AfD debates so as to avoid having AFD logs to appear on {{opentask}}. I must admit that it's not working out that well, so I might revert my change at Template:Relist soon. Hope this helps explain things a bit. --PFHLai (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. harej 15:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You're doing a heckuva job, BrownBot. harej 21:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

One bot and MfD date headers

Hi Harej,
could you comment at WT:Miscellany for deletion#Date header concerning MfD date header formatting?
Cheers, Amalthea 18:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've replied there again. :) Cheers, Amalthea 08:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And again. If you're ever in the mood to tweak the bot accordingly that would be great. :) Amalthea 10:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Juris Doctor Page and Canada Changes

Hi
I saw that you locked the Juris Doctor page. I wanted to edit it, but I'm too lazy to register an account.

Under the 'Replacement for the LL.B.' section, the list of Canadian schools provided is woefully inadequate. Aside from the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall, Queen's University Faculty of Law and the University of Western Ontario Faculty of law have moved to J.D. degrees. There is a broader trend at most schools in Ontario and beyond, with Ottawa and Windsor (the remaining law schools in Ontario) actively considering it and their various governing bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.118.167 (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I unlocked the article, so feel free to make improvements. harej 02:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Free myspace layouts listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Free myspace layouts. Since you had some involvement with the Free myspace layouts redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). hydrox (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

RM bot

Hello. RM bot put a notice at Talk:James Stewart that belongs at Talk:James Stewart (actor), apparently because the movereq tag is not in the usual order. I moved it manually but it came back to Talk:James Stewart. Is there a way to get rid of it? Station1 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"current1" and "new1" must pertain to the page that is tagged. Take note of my correction here. harej 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Error

There seems to be a formatting error on Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Engineering and technology. Do you know what is causing this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be when editors don't put a line break after the {{GA nominee}} template. See this diff. Perhaps the bot's code could be updated to accommodate this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This has indeed been a problem. The problem is that whenever I've tried to tinker with the relevant regular expression, I either make it too strict or too lazy. If you'd like to take a crack at it, take a look at User:GA bot/goodarticles.php. harej 16:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for re-listing my attempt to get some outside input at Talk:Swahili language. Haven't done one of these before so its a bit rough. RashersTierney (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. If you don't mind me asking, was there anything that led you to format the request the way you did? This is not the first time someone formatted it like that, and I would like to see if there's anything I need to clarify. There is also the RfC posting tool. harej 16:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

When i saw ((Rfctag|topic)) I assumed 'topic' should be substituted for the issue at hand, at least looking back, thats what I think I did. Not always easy to deconstruct these things after the fact. Hope that makes sense and isn't only adding to the confusion. RashersTierney (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a good point -- I can see how the vocabulary can be confusing. I'll see if I can clarify it. harej 17:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't read my

P-p-p-poker face. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Muh muh muh muh. harej 16:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RM Bot and wikilinks in section titles

I think having a wikilink in a section title causes RM bot to format the listing on WP:RM incorrectly. This was the lisitng when there was a wikilink in the section title of the requested move and this was the listing after I removed the wikilink. Although it's not normal to have wikilinks in the heading it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow it if it's not to difficult to change the code (assuming of course that is what's causing the problem). Unfortunately I don't know PhP or that much about the interface with wikipedia so can't suggest the code change (if it had been written in perl I'd have had more chance). Dpmuk (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a known bug to which there is no fix at this time (other than removing the link tags). harej 15:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Atari 2600 Casino.png

Thank you for uploading File:Atari 2600 Casino.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

My rationale succinctly explains exactly why the image is appropriately used. What the fuck more do you want? harej 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC bot - Two RFCs on one page, one live, one expired, both tags were removed

[6] –xeno^talk 23:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Some Person/The Real Secret Page and Secret Barnstar

Hello Harej. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Some Person/The Real Secret Page and Secret Barnstar Apparently you created these pages? [7] [8] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember now. Someone asked me to create those pages as part of his Secret Page deal, because if he created them, then people could just sleuth his contributions to find the secret page. This was before the User Page Gestapo came to existence. harej 17:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Putting new MFD sections on the bottom?

Whenever a new month starts, it seems that One bot is putting the sections in order solely by date, which makes the current month appear on the bottom, like this:

July 28
July 27
August 2
August 1

Is there a way to fix this? Train2104 (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This problem appears to be fixed, though I'll try to track it down in the history and see what causes it. harej 20:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what I wanted to say, and I've done so on the HD: WP:HD#Strange edit by One bot. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This problem is not fixed as of 2010-08-05 00:00:21 and the problem here, from a very brief perusal of the code, appears to be the classic programming mistake of sorting dates alphabetically rather than numerically. "July" is indeed greater than "August" in an alphabetical sort. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Here I was thinking I was beyond making such an error. Can you point out the specific line so that I can fix it? harej 21:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're creating an associative array based upon human-readable dates, rather than numerical timestamps, with $origtime[$title] = date("F j, Y", strtotime($time[0])); and then sorting that array with array_multisort($values, SORT_DESC, $keys);. Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, can you remove the backlog=yes parameter from the {{mfdbacklog}} tag? The functionality of the parameter has been deprecated and removed from the template. Further info at the talk page of the template. —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Promoting awareness of new RfCs

I've made a suggestion at the Village Pump, relating—at least tangientally—to the RfC bot. Watchlisting the RfC pages is (as far as I know) the only way to receive notification of new RfCs, but determining what the new RfC is by looking at a diff in Popups is is not as quick and easy as it could be (especially if there are multiple changes where RfCs are added, updated and removed). It seems to me that promoting general awareness of new RfCs is a very important function that we ought to take seriously. Your comments in the discussion would be welcome. PL290 (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

MFD

Something's gone wrong; One Bot keeps wiping out active MFDs. See for instance, this edit; every MFD made after the 9th was wiped out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, but the MFD archiver is turned off until further notice. I'll try to turn it back on later to see if it will work again without consequence. harej 23:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's the same problem. "August 7, 2010" sorts alphanumerically higher than "August 13, 2010". Uncle G (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  - Oh, good. I thought new crap had come up. harej 15:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Coordination/Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Coordination/Requests for comment is in bad shape as you can see here. Please turn off RFC bot until you can fix whatever caused this. – allen四names 19:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I found something. (1 2) I hope this helps. – Allen4names as 97.115.132.5 (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I looks as if things have been fixed but you may want to see what you can do about having your bot do error checking so this does not happen again. – allen四names 16:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I just may do that, but I'd like to see how that ended up becoming a practice to begin with. harej 18:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Redundant edit

In this edit your bot did not detect that a {{movenotice}} template was already added to the affected talk page. Should this be avoided in the future? 117Avenue (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The bot isn't trained to recognize movenotice. I don't know what movenotice is or how it came to exist, but there should be no reason for it given that my bot already informed relevant talk pages automatically. harej 11:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves, we are recommended to use it. If your bot is the correct way, to avoid confusion I suggest you remove this note, and any others, and delete the template. 117Avenue (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Help with bad user

Unfortunely this user is a vandal and looking at his/her track record, I think it would be wise to block the user. I found out that to block any user you have to be an admin, so could you do me a favour by blocking this user? Here is the edits made by the user: [[9]]. Thanks JeremyMcClean (Talk) 17:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

MfD section headings

A minor issue, but it seems that this bot creates the date section headings for the MfD page. It appears to link the section headings to the WP article for that day and year. For instance, for today it would create a section heading of August 31, 2010. This doesn't seem useful. I can't think of a reason why someone who is looking at MfD's will need to see the WP article for 2010. SnottyWong ^communicate 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The headers my bot creates don't have links in them. Either tools or people have been creating headers with links in them, but I haven't really minded much because the bot does away with the links anyway. I'll see if I can have a header automatically made each midnight to avoid this problem to begin with. harej 02:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The bot will now make a new date header every UTC midnight so that Twinkle and such don't do it automatically. Hooray for automation! harej 03:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

GAN automation

Hi Harej! Long time no see! We were wondering on the GAN talk page whether we're ready to implement the GAN automation that you developed almost a year ago. Cheers! Edge3 (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a preferred time for the rollout next Saturday? I suggest sometime in the period 08:00-20:00 UTC. Geometry guy 22:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what I do on Friday night. (Where I live, UTC Midnight is 8 PM.) I probably will do it around midnight, and barring that, sometime in the time range you recommend. It won't be take much time; everything is prepared, and it's just a matter of turning everything on. Right before I start the transition, there will be due notice. harej 23:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Harej/Archive12 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wishing Harej/Archive12 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Sweet xx ^Talk 12:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The GA bot

Hi, it would appear that this thing is screwed up slightly. Twice now, it has removed my nominations that I made almost a month ago. See this and this. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, I see why. Why weren't my noms changed in format? They were just removed. I had to replace them. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Harej, despite me changing the format of the nom to suit every other one, the bot is still "failing" my two nominations. The last edit summary said "Failing Ultimate Fighting Championship" and removed that AND the nomination for "The Ultimate Fighter". A bot shouldn't be removing nominations, never mind two. These articles haven't had past nominations and haven't been reviewed. Can you please have a look at the situation please. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The GA bot is doing something screwy here[10] by removing a note placed by User:Magiciandude about taking up the review of Amor Prohibido (song). Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure this is actually a bug - there was a note left on the GAN page but that's it - there wasn't anything done with the article itself, which is the thing the bot's looking for and (as far as I can tell) the expected process now per the discussion page. Shimgray | talk | 15:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Don't edit the WP:GAN list. Just do the process as you would normally do it, but don't update the GAN list. That's what the bot's job is. harej 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion, mysticism, and mythology

The GAbot is not recognising this subtopic, perhaps because of the serial comma. For ease and transparency, the bot should recognise any variant supported by {{GA/Subtopic}}. Geometry guy 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The bot is supposed to recognize it even with the serial comma; in processing the tag, it strips the serial comma and then sorts it appropriately. harej 20:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish you luck finding the bug, as e.g., Symeon the New Theologian has a well formed GA nominee template, but is listed erroneously under Miscellaneous at GAN. Geometry guy 20:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The weird part is that this seems to exclusively affect the religion category. In the meantime, I went in and removed commas as necessary. harej 21:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tidied up after your solution so that no serial commas remain. I trust now that all variants handled by {{GA/Subtopic}} will be parsed correctly by your bot. Please confirm or deny. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. Count on it before the 21st. harej 23:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

21st September? OK, I will count on it, thanks! Geometry guy 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There are also negative effects on the Statistianbot GA reports, please see various threads at WT:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted the bot operator about it. harej 20:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Article history

Hi harej. I just wanted to ask can we recode the GA bot to handle the task of updating the Article history of the GAs? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that usually done by the reviewer upon passing an article? It's not like the bot has any other way to tell before that happens. harej 04:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that depends on the reviewer. Sometimes they just paste the GA template in the talk page, sometimes they update the history. The bot can know from the change in the GAN page, when a nomination is removed. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If the reviewer updates the article history directly, there's nothing the bot can really do. If the review just uses the GA template, then I thought there was a bot that already did that? harej 02:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

RM bot issue

See [11], where it reverts my attempt to fix interwiki link breakage; the requester originally used the form without the colon in their request [12], which works fine on the talk page, but blindly copying it to Wikipedia:Requested moves/current caused it to be treated as one of that page's interwiki links, and it reverted my fix. I'm sure this problem doesn't come up often, but it is a problem; can you make certain this doesn't keep happening? — Gavia immer (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot broken?

There is nothing on the RM page except the dates. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC request removed

Your bot removed an RfC request that was not expired on talk:Special Forces. I replaced it and thought I'd let you know. CET ♔ 06:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Second time in less than an hour. This is becoming annoying. Thanks. CET ♔ 06:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This bot is f***ing annoying. Please fix this issue. CET ♔ 08:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that the bot detects a timestamp of 4 July which was nearly three months ago. I advise creating a new section or placing the tag later in the discussion. harej 08:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd RFC bot edit

Could you take a look at this? How can an RFC be both categorized and uncategorized at the same time? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This happens when it's in more than one category, with one category being legitimate and the other being non-existent. The solution is typically to fix or remove the other category. harej 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, apparently I put one too many vertical bars in the tag, so it registered empty as non-existant. Thanks for clearing that up. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OneBot's sort order

OneBot continues to have strange ideas about date order. In today's example it decided that the whole of September lay in between October the 3rd and October the 4th. Did you ever fix that date sorting problem? Uncle G (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not. harej 02:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I was in Danville

I was in Danville, Virginia canvassing. I will address your concerns in due time. Thank you for your patience! harej 02:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good article template

Hi, when you made this edit to the Good article nomination instructions, the section about adding the {{Good article}} template was removed. Was this your intention? I ask because some reviewers are not now adding it, perhaps thinking that bot will do so. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not recall it being my intention. harej 02:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have put that back in as some reviewers had stopped doing that. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you make the bot add it, though? It's probably not very difficult technically, and the fewer human actions are required to pass a GA the better. Ucucha 23:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it. harej 01:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

move-multi from Talk:C0_controls_and_basic_Latin#Unicode_block_names

Hi, re Wikipedia:Requested_moves#October_6.2C_2010
The list at WP:RM did not end up well, probably because I skipped pairs of numbers (like current4= and new4=). It looked allright in the preview, and after saving at the Talk page. Any suggestion?

Subsequently, only 5 out of say 18now have the Talkpage note.

And minor, since the bot does add to the Talk page (did I miss that on the RM-page?), cannot it add the {{movenotice}} to the article page too, say by option? Now it was quite a job, even using AWB.
And furthering this point, when the move has passed OK, removing the movenotices is another manual job ... for me? -DePiep (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Adding note about 5 Talkpages -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw the edit you made in the list. Did you notice now only 9 out of 16 are present? -DePiep (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't 9 an upgrade from 5, or am I missing something? Also, you don't have to remove the other move notices once the discussion is over. The whole point is that they're talk page messages like any other talk page message. harej 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 9 is better than 5 ;-), but not enough. In my original post at Talk:C0_controls_and_basic_Latin#Unicode_block_names there are 16 (after your renumbering). I'd expect these 16 all to be in the Wikipedia:Requested_moves#October 6, 2010 page. Now there are 9. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Second thought, if moves go ahead, and the moving bot reads the list from the Talkpage (not from RM), then there's no problem. It might indicate a bug still. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The bot generates the list from the template tag. It probably is a bug, too. If I am not mistaken this isn't the first time this has happened. harej 18:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

All OK. To be clear: which bot is triggered (after dicussion says "OK") to do the Moves? By what? -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Humans are the ones who say "okay" and perform the move (or say "no" and take no action). The bot's job is to keep the list up to date and to post messages on other talk pages when appropriate. harej 01:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Move-muli sandbox not ignored by bot

Hi Harej,

Just a comment about the RM bot and the move-multi template: I did some experimenting in the sandbox page, Template:Move-multi/sandbox, expecting the bot to ignore them, only to find shortly afterwards that my test entries had been copied to the actual WP:RM page.

Shouldn't there be some way for the bot to know that this sandbox is just a test area and not actually copy the move across?

Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a good thing that the bot didn't ignore them, as the bot isn't supposed to ignore any of them. There is a valid purpose to the bot fulfilling requests in the sandbox, e.g. to see if the request is carried over properly. In the future, I suppose if you don't want that you could just test to see if the template works then immediately remove it. Or should bots routinely ignore sandbox pages out of some protocol I don't know about yet? harej 21:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That protocol exists, and is called "WP:SANDBOX". It is quite reasonable to expect that material in a sandbox not to be transported to mainspace. A page that is called "/sandbox" or that has a template like {{template sandbox notice}} can considered to be a sandbox. The testing you mention could or should be performed within sandbox space, like Wikipedia:Requested moves/sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

One bot's time travel

Today (and in fact every day since 2010-10-08), One bot has decided to transport MFD back to the 1970s. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"January 1, 1970" means that the bot botched reading the page. It has happened at times. I don't really know the fix in this instance. harej 04:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop button for your bot...

Where is the stop button for your bot? It removed two move requests and left the edit summary "Updating list". What good is that? ~ R.T.G 16:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Read the directions on Wikipedia:Requested moves. You request through the talk page. harej 17:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussin on that talk page complaining about those directions in case that is of interest to you, thanks. ~ R.T.G 20:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Old notice

Hi, I noticed that after the RM bot has come along (eg here), it still shows the old template: A bot will list this discussion on Wikipedia:Requested moves within 15 minutes. Which is strange. Also, nowhere there is a link to the bot. I suggest improving those. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the template should say "This is now on the list" once it has been listed? That would be an unnecessary complication, though a clarification in language may help. You do know you're allowed to edit the template, right? harej 01:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Flying Elvis head

Re this edit summary. I never heard it called that! That's hysterical!!! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it not resemble a flying Elvis head? It's a sick logo. harej 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh absolutely! I just never heard it called that before, and thought it quite funny :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:RFC bot

Some recent edits by User:RFC bot aren't making any sense to me, e.g. [13] or [14], and even when its recent edits have been making sense, many of its edit summaries haven't (e.g. "Added: [[]] Removed: [[]]"). Is the bot malfunctioning, or is it just doing something I don't understand? --ais523 17:54, 29 October 2010 (U T C)

The first edit is because someone truncated the description and so the bot is updating appropriately. The second edit is something that occurred as I was replacing my own lousy implementation of a new feature with a better implementation. The edit summaries being dumb is something which I haven't figured out yet but am currently in the process of doing. harej 17:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Harej, I filed an RfC over an hour ago, which still hasn't appeared on the RfC pages. Would you mind looking to see if the bot is working? The RfC is here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I turned it off so that I could test it later when I know that people have added or removed the rfctag to pages. Thank you for giving me the cue! :) harej 20:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, and thanks for turning it back on again. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)