Do not discuss Citation bot issues here. Take them to the bot page instead. |
If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
... for fixing those DOIs. It's a vital maintenance task that is not normally listed or tracked, but makes a very important contribution to Wikipedia's linkage to other resources! JFW | T@lk 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I have also been submitting hundreds of ones that should work to www.doi.org. Many of then are already fixed. Yippee. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
.....always much appreciated :-) 86.191.205.63 ( talk) 12:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this. That had been confusing the hell out of me! How did you know they were there? SmartSE ( talk) 16:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I work hard to fix bad DOI's and Handles in General. So, I have just developed a sense of what can be wrong with a DOI. AManWithNoPlan ( talk)
Hi AManWithNoPlan,
Just wanted to drop a quick note and say thanks for all the doi fixes you've been doing. I'm still working on the carbon cycle page plus the new pages I'm writing for the section and I sure appreciate any help I can get - especially on such things as citations, which I'm not the best at. Thanks again!
Daniel Lee ( talk) 20:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up my citation with the template at Negative temperature. RJFJR ( talk) 14:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with
Khin Sok - that was super fast - too fast for me
All the best
Wikirictor (
talk) 16:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
What does 'proxy' mean?What does 'proxy' mean? BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 06:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
September 2016 - ProxyHello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Contemporary Christian music, did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Bare URLs are not appropriate as they can cause [[[Wikipedia:Link rot|link rot]]. Please stop changing fully formatted references back to bare URLs. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion of ProxiesThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
ProxyURL, use AWBHey! I saw some of your work on the proxy urls: that seems like something that could move a lot quicker with a semi-automated tool, like WP:AWB or a WP:Bots. Have you thought about requesting access to one or both? Sadads ( talk) 21:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Proxy?Greetings! I noticed that you've been making some fixes to a series of articles about South Carolina Supreme Court justices that I set up a while back. That's great. I plowed through those people and created baseline entries for each of them, and I was hoping they might attract a little more attention than they have. It looks like a lot of the fixes involve "removing a proxy." I have to admit that I'm really most interested in the underlying content of articles and not all of the background machinery that goes into the coding. But, I'm open to learning. Can I ask for a super simple explanation of what exactly is being changed? If you can explain it to super low brow terms, I'd like to make sure that I am not making the same mistake elsewhere. Kevin ProfReader ( talk) 02:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Arizona proxies/ProquestHello. Thanks for your work on this. I noticed these too yesterday. I checked some of them but found that on occasion they used a citation that was unrelated to the content. I referred it to an administrator here. Karst ( talk) 14:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
BeenAroundAWhileI don't appreciate your removing the so-called "proxy" from the Bolton Hall (California) article, not from any of the others which you have "fixed," because now thousands of people with L.A. Public Library cards can't get in to follow the link. I'm sure you didn't think of this, but how are we now to see what the source said? BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
Hey, thanks for another suite of fixes to Citation bot; you'll be delighted to learn that after a very long-awaited free weekend I've finally beaten the issues that had held me back from rolling the bot out to production, so all your hard-written fixes are now live! Yay! Now that we have a CI setup that I'm confident in (and I'm more confident in how it operates), I'm going to suggest a more positive approach to bug fixes. I don't think we need to make as extensive use of the development branch as we have been, so suggest now that we work directly on the Cheers, and thanks again for your help in maintaining the bot. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 07:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC) |
Hi, thanks for cleaning up the jstor cites on several pages. I apologize, those were generated automatically by visual editor. I'm curious if the right way to go is to use WP:UCB for all similar references moving forward as I've not been used to doing so on the source editor environment. Verbosmithie ( talk) 02:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
In your editing preference you turn on "Citation expander: automatically expand and format citations using Citation bot" and then you can use it. As for the "easy" way to use it, I often just put urls or doi's into refercence like <ref>http://www.jstor.org/stable/dsafdfd</ref><ref>10.234132/3241234</ref> and then run the bot. I should note that some jstors do not get recognized, and might require you to explicitly <ref>{{cite journal|jstor=34231234faddfasdfdas}}</ref> AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 03:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I generally put the names of newspapers in italics inside a citation for the publisher, (publisher=name here) similar to how they are displayed in Wikipedia article titles: The New York Times. Isn't italics for the name of a newspaper the norm/standard here? I haven't found any policy which states this explicitly, maybe can you point me to one for some clarity? Thanks! --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
|work=
and its aliases such as |newspaper=
? Such as"title". newspaper. publisher.
AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 23:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The error is the use of the wrong template parameter. Publishers are not italics. Perhaps I should add a list of things put in publisher= that should be in work/journal/magazine/newspaper= (Which is automatically made italics) and fix them AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Once this is merged in, the bot will start fixing the citations and converting select publishers to the work parameter, which automatically does italics. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1679 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Like with this edit on John Adams? That's about it. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 12:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
for your work on adding new IDs like SemScholar to citation bot. This will be most useful for the broader vision of the WikiCite project. – SJ + 15:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
You have been
blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making
personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} .
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk) 12:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy).
AManWithNoPlan ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: People lied about me and I pointed it out, so the liars got upset and me pointing it out Decline reason: WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Yamla ( talk) 13:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
IF the bot is working correctly, adding a comment to the URL should stop the bot from removing it. I have worked hard to make sure comment imply DON’T TOUCH THIS Mr Bot. There are a few exceptions, but they are far and few. I should note that access-dates are not when someone checked to see if the reference was saying what it claims to to say, but when the url was still alive. That’s why DOI, ProQuest and such don’t have access dates. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who accepted the request.
AManWithNoPlan ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: resolved issues with word choices that implies bad faith in others that was not meant to be implied Accept reason: Welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC) I'm also sorry to see you were blocked over this, and I feel a bit guilty as I was the one who started this particular rabbit running. On the upside, I'm really happy that you fixed the "minor edit" problem that concerned me, and I'll be delighted if Sandy and Andy's concerns are now settled as well. As I spend much of my time these days working on maintaining tools that bring Wikidata into infoboxes, I empathise with your desire to keep complaints and bug reports in a single place, but Wikipedia isn't neat and tidy like that. I'm even more glad that you've engaged in discourse with the editors who have had problems – it really does make a difference to the editor's experience when they raise an issue (even in the "Wrong Place™") if they get a response from a real person and they can see that they are taken seriously. One of the consequential issues is that I think we need to be clearer as a community about our expectations of responsibility. You'll find that most editors, if asked, will insist that there has to be person to "blame" for erroneous edits, whether they are made by an editor manually, or using a simple script or AWB, by a bot. I doubt that there would be many dissenting from the view that the editor who activates the bot should be the responsible person. The benefit of bots is that we get a lot of routine edits done rapidly and efficiently – we need to acknowledge that – but the disadvantage is that it is near impossible for whoever runs the bot to check all of the edits for errors – and we have to accept that as well. The flipside of that coin is that whoever triggers a bot has to pay extra attention to issues as they arise, mainly because it's the right thing to do, but also because you're likely to get it in the neck if you don't . I hope you've made some new wiki-friends (after all, we all want the same thing: to improve the encyclopedia), and I hope that Andy, Sandy, et al will feel that they can come to you if they run into Citation Bot issues in the future. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 23:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC) Cheers to you all too. It has been a hard road for all of us. But, thankfully no real trolls showed up. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 11:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC) |
Your hard work has not gone unnoticed. Thank you. Viriditas ( talk) 07:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, are you done with your large runs for now? (I ask because when you're done I want to refresh the OAbot queue.) From quarry:query/31224 I still see the usual ~44k articles: many are not fixable by citation bot (unstructured citations and such), but from a small sample I think the bot would make a successful edit on some 10-20 % of them. Nemo 13:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
AMWNP, there is a similar issue occurring to the last time we spoke, with free full text links being removed at coprolalia [2] and dementia with Lewy bodies. Last time, I didn't fully understand where to raise the issue, or what was causing it, but I recall that you or someone told me to add a comment in the URL field so it would not continue to be removed. Will these fixes at DLB work to prevent those URLs from being removed again, or do I need to inquire somewhere else? Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
the owner of the website linked to, requested that we link to the ID instead of URLs. As for PDF vs landing page, most editors prefer a landing page since they generally are much less likley to atop working: a lot of scemanticschlor pdf links that i found when testing the conversion code no longer worked and redirected to the landing page. The second reason is that landing pages are geneally much quicker to load and much more handicapped accesible. Many people find downloading ANY file to be evil and will not do it. I personaly, usually read just the abstract. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 16:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Your replies to my concerns about your disruptive editing in unlinking citation titles against common consensus lead me to believe that you intend to continue. I am therefore blocking you until you are prepared to give assurances that such disruption will not recur. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC) If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} .
RexxS (
talk) 22:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy).
AManWithNoPlan ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: I am not editing anything. There is a bot that is editing pages. I am not an operator of the bot either. I cannot take part in discussions without being unblocked. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 22:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Decline reason: Procedural decline. No longer blocked, and the block is at ANI for community review anyway. It is clear that the state of a block will rest on the shoulders of ANI, not this unblock request. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 05:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
if the bot is blocked then existing runs should die pretty fast. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I lack the skills to undo the actions of an approved bot doing an approved task. I find the request to "clean it up" while still blocked to be odd. A significant enough fraction of the links changes to ID links are copyright infringing copies that all the links would need to be checked by hand before adding, and in good faith I would have not only not add back the offending links but remove S2CID links for those. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 11:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Citation bot had to add special code to avoid adding C2 links to avoid being blocked. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
|
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Citation bot again. Thank you. Le v!v ich 16:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
url
parameters. But for now, I think it best to err on the side of caution. Cheers --
RexxS (
talk) 14:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Why do you bother making edits like these [8]? The empty parameters text doesn't harm anything on those pages, and they make it easier to provide additional information if requested. Not that I necessarily care, but I am curious. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Please discuss your changes. Using a bot to edit war is disruptive. This article was PRODded recently, and is a real shame that nobody has ever come forward before to improve it, and the only edits are trivial ones that don't seem to benefit the reader. User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts#References sums up my views on this quite well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Or? please ping me if you have advice. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
unless you have (1) hand-checked that the new url gives exactly the same page as before and (2) you have changed the access-date parameter to reflect the new url.
There is no need to change a url which I have checked for myself, for one that hasn't been checked by a human at all. Various mistakes can and do get in. For what practical gain? It anyway falsifies the access-date parameter, which surely can never be legitimate.
It also means that I must thoroughly check for accuracy every time you do one of these edits. Regrettably, because I write articles with many citations, I have not time enough.
I appreciate what you are seeking to do in general, which is constructive. Ttocserp 17:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
This url https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KVoKd9vDSxsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=J%C5%8Dch%C5%8D+canon+knees+triangle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiO2cjY57bsAhUbaRUIHcbODgU4HhC7BTAAegQIARAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false gives the full text of an exhibition guide. Anything I do to reduce the URL just seems to reduce the visibility to one page. I'm worried that if I put it in an article, the bot will make the same error. Can you see what is unusual about it? Thanks. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
AManWithNoPlan tinkering with A Woman With No Clothes On? ( Here.) It doesn't seem entirely proper. GrindtXX ( talk) 20:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Age: old enough to remember when red states meant Russia and China.
Yep, I know what you mean.
Ddspell (
talk) 21:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your help with the wrong url, and so sorry for the trouble! Thanks again. -- Ash-Gaar ( talk) 18:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the Google Book links in List of appearances of Bob Grant on stage and screen. I have edited that article a great deal, and yet, there are still things to correct! Wood and trees and all that. Best regards, Gricharduk ( talk) 04:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi regarding your edit here at Antony Blinken, I was a little confused as to why you'd remove an archive URL there, as I thought WP:DEADREF encourages archiving URLs in sources.
Sdrqaz ( talk) 16:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
You are using Citation bot to change |publisher=
to |work=
for a variety of business organizations that are actually publishers, not websites or newspapers or magazines or works. According to
ABC News,
BBC News,
CBS News,
NBC News, and
Reuters these are all businesses! They are not websites! They are not magazines! They are not TV or radio programs! Note: You seem to be correctly leaving
Fox News as a |publisher=
. Thank you for that.
You should be flipping these the other way, changing |work=
or any of its aliases to |publisher=
for
ABC News,
BBC News,
CBS News,
NBC News. When the news item is on Reuters' website, it's |publisher=Reuters
, otherwise it's |agency=Reuters
.
Also, you are using Citation bot to change certain newspapers/websites correctly from |publisher=
to |work=
, but in some cases leaving them in an incorrect form, such as [[New York Times]]
or New York Times.com
instead of [[The New York Times]]
. Also, |agency=''(Boston Globe)''
was corrected to |agency=(Boston Globe)
, but should be further corrected to |agency=The Boston Globe
, with "The" and without parentheses.
Yngvadottir: I think the comments we posted at User talk:Citation bot actually belong here. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 11:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Please stop running citation bot on Syrian Kurdistan. Levivich harass/ hound 23:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, not quite sure what happened in this sequence of edits, but it changed the citation to point to the wrong ONDB article. I've reverted for now. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 12:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Just in case you are wondering about the curious chapter-url= that you corrected at Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, it was indeed an error. The citations were originally given with one per chapter because the book is so enormous, but adopting the loc=[html option in {{ sfn}} allowed it to be cited conventionally. Well, apart from failing to correct the chapter-url=, obviously. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there a setting in the bot that will flag its edits as "minor" so they do not appear in the watchlists of editors who filter out minor edits? Thank you. soibangla ( talk) 00:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, could you please run citation bot here? Thanks! GagaNutella talk 15:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at White House COVID-19 outbreak. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk) 11:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I might be in the minority, but I'm highly skeptical / suspicious / disapproving of mass additions of these links to articles as I explain here. Thus, I made this revert. Feel free to reply to the thread at User_talk:Tony1#Greetings if you wish, thanks. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts as they relate to the objections I raise with these links. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) 17:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey there! Thanks for running Citation bot over
Category:CS1 maint: ref=harv. I think the jobs that are currently queued up for the bot will exhaust what is possible with the current settings. To clear the rest of the redundant |ref=harv
easily, a script or bot (or human) will need to find and remove them in CS1 wrapper templates. In the current population of the category (2,195 pages), I see:
There are no doubt more. My script grabs anything that starts with "Cite", so I need to manually inspect each proposed edit, but those are some of the easy pickings. Are you able/willing to add some code to the bot that removes |ref=harv
from those templates? If not, 2,000 is not that bad to do with a script. The bot has done an incredible job of reducing the population from 55,000 to 2,000 in recent weeks.
One more thing: the bot seems to be ignoring pages outside of article space. I don't know if that's intentional. I tried to feed a page full of Wikipedia-space links to it (191 pages), and the bot said "!No links to expand found".
Also pinging Deadman137, who has submitted the same category to the bot. I don't think submitting the category again will help unless the bot is modified to see the above templates. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
|ref=harv
removed. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Hi AManWithNoPlan, earlier today you edited an article I started to change a commented-out reference, removing a "ref=harv" parameter. It can't have had any impact on the article, so I assume this was some kind of mass correction. Is there somewhere I can read up on the fix you're working on? At the time I wrote it I must have thought the "ref=harv" was needed, though I stopped using the reference itself. Presumably that's changed. All the best, › Mortee talk 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually you can set that to 2500 or even 5000 if your browser can handle it: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Citation_bot&offset=&limit=2500&target=Citation+bot Abductive ( reasoning) 21:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Basing it on diffs such as [9], [10], [11] seem to suggest that the task is gone, or why else would the nobots tag be removed without consensus to do so? But Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 18, User:Monkbot/task 18: cosmetic cs1 template cleanup, and User:Monkbot contain no indication that this task has been ended, and the last one still lists the task as active. Has something changed with the permissions to the project, or is it no longer allowed to block this task from being fulfilled, or is something else going on. Hog Farm Talk 20:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, could you refrain from activating citation bot on (my) user space pages? I’d rather be the only one editing them, as, you know, their being in my user space would suggest. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello!! Thanks for all the doi fixes you have been doing on Open ocean convection, and sorry for the trouble! All the references were generated automatically by visual editor, so I don't understand what I have done wrong. Could you explain to me my mistake in order to avoid these mistakes in the future? Thanks again!! Dandelion11 ( talk) 18:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 20:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi! What did you think of my draft article of the Statue of Mentuemhet when you looked at it? I'm still developing the article, so I would appreciate any potential feedback for future improvement. Thanks, Tyrone Madera ( talk) 18:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Why would you remove a link to an open access article with the Wikipedia library that anyone can read if they have made 500+ edits with at least 10 in the last month and have been editing for at least 6 months, with a paywalled doi that requires an account to access? The beauty of the Wikipedia library is that it makes information that would otherwise be paywalled, open to anyone who meets the criteria. I don't understand why you would make this edit, but I didn't want to revert it without discussion. I'm not very technical, I am primarily a researcher/writer, so if there is a valid reason for this change, I need to know. Thanks! SusunW ( talk) 21:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I see that Kaldari has retired. Does that mean you are now the sole maintainer of citation bot? — Epipelagic ( talk) 01:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi AManWithNoPlan
Please can you help me with a stoopid wee thing?
I see you have invoked
InternetArchiveBot a few times, e.g.
[12]. I want to invoke
InternetArchiveBot on
Sonora, but can't figure out how to do so. The only interface page I have found is
https://iabot.toolforge.org/index.php?page=runbotsingle .. but when I enter "Sonora" it says the page doesn't exist. When I enter en:Sonora
, it says it processed the page and analysed zero links, but the page it reports is
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/en:Sonora, which is just a redirect.
Also, it seems there is a batch mode, which I also can't find.
Can you help? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
for yet another prompt tweak [13] to Citation bot to keep it performing its valuable role in supporting the core policy of Verifiability. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
Please stop erasing parameters off my bibliographic sources like editors, if these weren't "almost always necessary" then why would these parameters even exist? Including these does not affect the information conveyed in an article in any way shape or form, nor does it affect the experience of the reader: The most complete and the more information a bibliographic source has, the better; so please stop erasing parameters off my sources!
-- The Exterminating Angel ( talk) 23:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, AMWNP. I notice you made an edit at Retrocomputing where your edit summary said something like, just doing to create archives. When I find the archived version of a webpage at web.archive.org is out of date, I manually get it make a new one and then cite that one. Does your method automate that process? Would it be better? Or, does it require the use of special tools (e.g., CiteBot)? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 12:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, AManWithNoPlan,
I see you are working on improving this article which is good since it popped up on the "New Bad Articles List" I scan. Any ideas for a better article title than the current unwieldy one? Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi AManWithNoPlan, I was wondering why this bot changes the top level domain Google books domain from https://books.google.co.uk to https://books.google.com/books . Why do that exactly. scope_creep Talk 12:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
&hl=en
to the url. However,
this edit was apparently made by you personally. Would you kindly make sure that such edits are wanted before making any more of them? Thank you,
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 21:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
JoelleJay ( talk) 21:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)I thought after writing that request that I might have phrased it a bit more diplomatically. So thanks for responding to the spirit rather than the letter. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, could you please explain what do you mean
here with my toolforge account is in some weird limbo state and unusable
? As far as I can see, you have a
developer account AManWithNoPlan, which has access to the Toolforge project but is not a member of any
tool account.
Majavah (
talk!) 16:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, AManWithNoPlan. Can you anonymize references on the page Shivaji? I don't know how to run the bot. Akshaypatill ( talk) 20:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
I see here you have manually replaced Template:cite press (a redirect) with its target Template:Cite press release. As you probably know, this is a trivial edit (not changing the resulting, presented page in any way) and so deemend trivial and undesired. I propose you skip such edits. Or are there reasonings I did miss? - DePiep ( talk) 06:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup! FYI, for some reason the citation templates do not accept dashes in ISSNs. Per Civil War project guidelines, I should have included url-access paramater with pay/subscription urls, so I have rewritten them and added subscription status to reference (some students/non-profit researchers have access to Muse ENSCO, JSTOR, Haditha, etc.) Thanks again! Boo Boo ( talk) 17:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
|issn=
without your intervention, please file a bug on its talk page. It should not do that, since only a hyphen (or nothing) is valid in that parameter. It's not a numeric range. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Porting Citation Bot to simple.wiki has greatly helped, and already is giving great results. From request to final bot approval at simplewiki was under 48 hours, and entirely thanks to your work. Thank you. Mako001 (C) (T) 13:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
Hello, AManWithNoPlan. Please look at the changes you made to simple:Mimmi, simple:Dulce Amor, and simple:Donde Quiera Que Estés. Each of those changes introduced duplicate template parameters. Please check for that kind of thing when you make changes to template parameters. Thanks.
Also, please reconsider redirecting your talk page at Simple English Wikipedia. If you are active there, it would be helpful for people to be able to contact you there. In addition, automated processes will not see the redirect and will leave messages there anyway.
Please ping with any response. Thanks. -- Auntof6 ( talk) 21:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! :-) InternetArchiveBot seems to have a bug that makes it stall on pages with huge numbers of refs (some further discussion here), and it appears that your batch job #9588 has gotten hung up on a whole clump of such ref-saturated articles, tying down one of the bot's channels in the process. Would you mind please killing that batch job and creating a new batch job for the remainder of the list (minus the huge ones)? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 15:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't quite see the point of this edit. Updating the date makes it look like the doi is only recently broken (and thus might have some hope of it coming back online). Surely it is important information for anyone thinking of trying to fix it to know how long it has been broken for. Spinning Spark 10:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
For the cleanup on Aisle 5...well, actually at | |
Zapruder film. Muchly appreciated - Shearonink ( talk) 19:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC) |
Thanks for pointing out the ISSN issue. I was wondering about it. Now it is clear as you have demonstrated that that the first issue of the journal has ISSN 0857-3931 and the next one became 0857-3932. This is definitely not a valid ISSN.
Taweetham (
talk) 06:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
For helping maintain Citationbot! Andre 🚐 02:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
The Wikipedia Bot Builder Award | ||
For your brilliant work in creating the new mode for @ Citation bot. It has massively increased filling of the backlog of bare URLs which have been bare for ages and ages. Thankyou thankyou thankyou! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
Please check your work after using Citation bot. [14] Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Greatest thanx both for creating and maintaining Citation bot and for greatly improving its capabilities a few months ago! Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 13:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC) |
Is it common practice for citation bot to make changes to user namespace pages? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 13:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 13:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Citation bot seems to have reintroduced replacement characters into cites after they've been manually fixed. All the ones I've spotted so far have been after bot initiated by one editor who has corrected at least one himself, with ES "weird". Eagleash ( talk) 13:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I notice that you have deleted some 60+ citation links (seemingly mostly to citeseerx.ist.psu.edu). (It didn't appear to me that this was a citation bot issue, but maybe I don't know how to determine that).
In any case, based on a sample of a couple of these links, there seem to be working versions of these available from wayback archive. Is there any reason not to replace those with archive links? Fabrickator ( talk) 21:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
There I was, citing a journal article and as usual, the list of authors goes on and on. So I decided to just use authors=
to put it in as is, in the fond belief that CitationBot will surely come and clean it up, saving me the trouble of doing it by hand. Well it added bibcode etc but studiously ignored the list of authors.
Just thought I might mention it, on the off chance that you are idly filing your nails, eating chocolate, looking out the window, just waiting for the phone to ring. . Yes, I know, as if! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 00:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
AManWithNoPlan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡ 17:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 17:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I left this message for Smith609, who may not be able to repond, and since you are Thing 2 ;>) - I'll ask it here. If two major citation styles are present in a 200-citation article (see Hummingbird), I'm assuming that running the bot on the existing author formats would not convert them all to the one preferred style |last=
Is this assumption correct?
1. would each ref with Vancouver style author format need to be edited manually for the bot? 2. on so many references, the bot seems to run slowly. On what size portions would it be best for bot performance? 3. could the bot be modified (or a script created) to run on any article in edit mode to make all citations consistent in one style?
Thanks for your thoughts. Zefr ( talk) 05:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
A correction was made to Thomas Johnston (engraver) by CB suggested by you here/ Most of it is fine & correct but I am puzzled by the page range correction in a ref from pages=1020-1021 to pages=1020–1021. Template:Cite book#In-source locations states
It almost looks like CB is converting en dashes to em dashes but I think maybe it is actually converting a hyphen to an en dash? I'd just like to know for sure. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 04:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the references in Charles Brenton Fisk! I did not even realize that there were issues. Carpimaps ( talk) 13:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
... in Reform movement and Judicial reform of Alexander II. After spending so much time manually trying to spruce those up, it's lovely to see the job polished off so quickly. (I *must* learn how to use that bot!) – •Raven .talk 04:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Please do not use CitationBot to destroy a working link to the *complete* version of a public domain book, replacing it with one that doesn't, as you have now done twice in this article. Ttocserp 14:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I've just reverted for a second time your change using Citation bot to a reference: Special:Permalink/1145340951 to Special:Permalink/1145136828
You changed:
| url = https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmniaf/928/928.pdf
to:
| chapter-url = https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmniaf/928/928.pdf
The url in question does not point to the chapter (Appendix 1) specified in the citation: it points to the whole document, so the url parameter seems to me to be the correct one to use.
As far as I can tell, your change is wrong. If I am mistaken, please explain.
Michael F 1967 ( talk) 16:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to inform you that your bot's recent edit in Dzüko Valley was reverted by me. It was not intentionally done. It was necessary to restore the entire recent edits done by an edit warrior. So, yours was unfortunately but un-exclusively included. I want to request you to please re edit the page. Thanks! Haoreima ( talk) 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Do you happen to have a regex or suggestion how to find Google Books URLs? I know of https://books.google.com/whatever and https://www.google.com/books/whatever but unclear about country-specific URLs? -- Green C 13:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
https?:\/\/(?:|www\.books\.|books\.|www\.)google\.[a-zA-Z\.][a-zA-Z\.][a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?\/books https?:\/\/(?:|www\.books\.|books\.)google\.[a-zA-Z\.][a-zA-Z\.][a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?\/\?
"books.google.ac", "books.google.ad", "books.google.ae", "books.google.com.af", "books.google.com.ag", "books.google.com.ai", "books.google.al", "books.google.am", "books.google.co.ao", "books.google.com.ar", "books.google.as", "books.google.at", "books.google.com.au", "books.google.az", "books.google.ba", "books.google.com.bd", "books.google.be", "books.google.bf", "books.google.bg", "books.google.com.bh", "books.google.bi", "books.google.bj", "books.google.com.bn", "books.google.com.bo", "books.google.com.br", "books.google.bs", "books.google.bt", "books.google.co.bw", "books.google.by", "books.google.com.bz", "books.google.ca", "books.google.com.kh", "books.google.cc", "books.google.cd", "books.google.cf", "books.google.cat", "books.google.cg", "books.google.ch", "books.google.ci", "books.google.co.ck", "books.google.cl", "books.google.cm", "books.google.cn", "books.google.com.co", "books.google.co.cr", "books.google.com.cu", "books.google.cv", "books.google.com.cy", "books.google.cz", "books.google.de", "books.google.dj", "books.google.dk", "books.google.dm", "books.google.com.do", "books.google.dz", "books.google.com.ec", "books.google.ee", "books.google.com.eg", "books.google.es", "books.google.com.et", "books.google.fi", "books.google.com.fj", "books.google.fm", "books.google.fr", "books.google.ga", "books.google.ge", "books.google.gf", "books.google.gg", "books.google.com.gh", "books.google.com.gi", "books.google.gl", "books.google.gm", "books.google.gp", "books.google.gr", "books.google.com.gt", "books.google.gy", "books.google.com.hk", "books.google.hn", "books.google.hr", "books.google.ht", "books.google.hu", "books.google.co.id", "books.google.iq", "books.google.ie", "books.google.co.il", "books.google.im", "books.google.co.in", "books.google.io", "books.google.is", "books.google.it", "books.google.je", "books.google.com.jm", "books.google.jo", "books.google.co.jp", "books.google.co.ke", "books.google.ki", "books.google.kg", "books.google.co.kr", "books.google.com.kw", "books.google.kz", "books.google.la", "books.google.com.lb", "books.google.com.lc", "books.google.li", "books.google.lk", "books.google.co.ls", "books.google.lt", "books.google.lu", "books.google.lv", "books.google.com.ly", "books.google.co.ma", "books.google.md", "books.google.me", "books.google.mg", "books.google.mk", "books.google.ml", "books.google.com.mm", "books.google.mn", "books.google.ms", "books.google.com.mt", "books.google.mu", "books.google.mv", "books.google.mw", "books.google.com.mx", "books.google.com.my", "books.google.co.mz", "books.google.com.na", "books.google.ne", "books.google.com.nf", "books.google.com.ng", "books.google.com.ni", "books.google.nl", "books.google.no", "books.google.com.np", "books.google.nr", "books.google.nu", "books.google.co.nz", "books.google.com.om", "books.google.com.pk", "books.google.com.pa", "books.google.com.pe", "books.google.com.ph", "books.google.pl", "books.google.com.pg", "books.google.pn", "books.google.com.pr", "books.google.ps", "books.google.pt", "books.google.com.py", "books.google.com.qa", "books.google.ro", "books.google.rs", "books.google.ru", "books.google.rw", "books.google.com.sa", "books.google.com.sb", "books.google.sc", "books.google.se", "books.google.com.sg", "books.google.sh", "books.google.si", "books.google.sk", "books.google.com.sl", "books.google.sn", "books.google.sm", "books.google.so", "books.google.st", "books.google.sr", "books.google.com.sv", "books.google.td", "books.google.tg", "books.google.co.th", "books.google.com.tj", "books.google.tk", "books.google.tl", "books.google.tm", "books.google.to", "books.google.tn", "books.google.com.tr", "books.google.tt", "books.google.com.tw", "books.google.co.tz", "books.google.com.ua", "books.google.co.ug", "books.google.com.uy", "books.google.co.uz", "books.google.com.vc", "books.google.co.ve", "books.google.vg", "books.google.co.vi", "books.google.com.vn", "books.google.vu", "books.google.ws", "books.google.co.za", "books.google.co.zm", "books.google.co.zw", "books.google.co.uk"
Oh this is great, that would have taken a long time to figure out. Thanks much! -- Green C 14:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could revisit this edit as it is missing the parameter name and causing a cite date error. Many thanks. Keith D ( talk) 17:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for helping me fix the citations in the article I was working on in my sandbox. You are a real lifesaver!!! You are the "man with the plan"!!! Garagepunk66 ( talk) 22:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The Citation Barnstar | |
This is a token of my appreciation for your help in me sorting out that whole mess with those red-letter citations. Your assistance has made it possible for me to do a quality expansion on a major article. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 23:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC) |
Hi. The reason I use the template redirect {{paywall}} in the Deaths in 2023 article instead of {{subscription required}} (and will continue to do so) is to cut down on the number of characters being used in the page coding, which as you will realise is already over-bloated by necessary descriptions used during entries, and other technical additions, which make up the list in its entirety. This is just by way of explanation - as the redirect produces the same message next to the source on tooltip hover [(subscription required)], I see no reason why the redirect cannot be of valid use in its shorter form. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 18:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
~~~~ 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 19:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Webservice request timed out
The tool responsible for the URL you have requested, https://citations.toolforge.org/process_page.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&page=Foobar, is taking too long to respond. If you have reached this page from somewhere else...
This URI is managed by the citations tool, maintained by AManWithNoPlan, Dbarratt, Kaldari, Mattsenate, Maximilianklein, Smith609.
You may wish to notify the tool's maintainers (above) about the error. If you maintain this tool
The web service for this tool is running but cannot be reached. Please check the error logs of your web service.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Could you run the bog against that category? It's exceeding limits, and I'd rather not have to break it down in 12-14 parts and constantly monitor where the run it at over most of December. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for getting that set straight! Looks like I had two revisions selected when I was looking at the diff, and missed the one that actually made the crazy change. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for replying on the Leibniz integral rule Talk page and referring to a scrollbar setting for Safari on iPad. It would have heen very helpful, had I been able to find such a setting for iPadOS 17.2. But I have not, even after over half an hour of searching, and I am at a loss. [Yes, I know how to find “Instellingen”, “Algemeen”, “Scherm en helderheid”, “Toegankelijkheid”, ”Zoek”, etc. (Settings, General, Screen and brightness, Accessibility, Search”), which quite a few websites are referring to. But a “always show scrollbar” setting just does not appear.] I am abl, though, to do the horizontal scrolling (as well as the vertical scrolling). The screen just gives no clue as to the possibility of scrolling. If you are knowledgeable and have a good idea, that would be welcome. Would I need a software extension for such “luxury” functionality? Redav ( talk) 04:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Any progress on [15]? This seems a very low hanging fruit, just adapt whatever you have for & → & ? Headbomb (alt) ( talk) 16:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I was recently calling the bot mostly via https://citations.toolforge.org/ so don't have any new NULL DOIs so far locally accumulated. Do you have access to the NULL DOIs accumulated at citations.toolforge.org?
However, you you make replacements from POST to GET in the future, I will be glad to participate in testing and this way will get the NULL DOIs to accumulate.
Does it makes sense? Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 11:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Do not discuss Citation bot issues here. Take them to the bot page instead. |
If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
... for fixing those DOIs. It's a vital maintenance task that is not normally listed or tracked, but makes a very important contribution to Wikipedia's linkage to other resources! JFW | T@lk 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I have also been submitting hundreds of ones that should work to www.doi.org. Many of then are already fixed. Yippee. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
.....always much appreciated :-) 86.191.205.63 ( talk) 12:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this. That had been confusing the hell out of me! How did you know they were there? SmartSE ( talk) 16:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I work hard to fix bad DOI's and Handles in General. So, I have just developed a sense of what can be wrong with a DOI. AManWithNoPlan ( talk)
Hi AManWithNoPlan,
Just wanted to drop a quick note and say thanks for all the doi fixes you've been doing. I'm still working on the carbon cycle page plus the new pages I'm writing for the section and I sure appreciate any help I can get - especially on such things as citations, which I'm not the best at. Thanks again!
Daniel Lee ( talk) 20:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up my citation with the template at Negative temperature. RJFJR ( talk) 14:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with
Khin Sok - that was super fast - too fast for me
All the best
Wikirictor (
talk) 16:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
What does 'proxy' mean?What does 'proxy' mean? BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 06:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
September 2016 - ProxyHello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Contemporary Christian music, did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Bare URLs are not appropriate as they can cause [[[Wikipedia:Link rot|link rot]]. Please stop changing fully formatted references back to bare URLs. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion of ProxiesThere is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
ProxyURL, use AWBHey! I saw some of your work on the proxy urls: that seems like something that could move a lot quicker with a semi-automated tool, like WP:AWB or a WP:Bots. Have you thought about requesting access to one or both? Sadads ( talk) 21:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Proxy?Greetings! I noticed that you've been making some fixes to a series of articles about South Carolina Supreme Court justices that I set up a while back. That's great. I plowed through those people and created baseline entries for each of them, and I was hoping they might attract a little more attention than they have. It looks like a lot of the fixes involve "removing a proxy." I have to admit that I'm really most interested in the underlying content of articles and not all of the background machinery that goes into the coding. But, I'm open to learning. Can I ask for a super simple explanation of what exactly is being changed? If you can explain it to super low brow terms, I'd like to make sure that I am not making the same mistake elsewhere. Kevin ProfReader ( talk) 02:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Arizona proxies/ProquestHello. Thanks for your work on this. I noticed these too yesterday. I checked some of them but found that on occasion they used a citation that was unrelated to the content. I referred it to an administrator here. Karst ( talk) 14:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
BeenAroundAWhileI don't appreciate your removing the so-called "proxy" from the Bolton Hall (California) article, not from any of the others which you have "fixed," because now thousands of people with L.A. Public Library cards can't get in to follow the link. I'm sure you didn't think of this, but how are we now to see what the source said? BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
Hey, thanks for another suite of fixes to Citation bot; you'll be delighted to learn that after a very long-awaited free weekend I've finally beaten the issues that had held me back from rolling the bot out to production, so all your hard-written fixes are now live! Yay! Now that we have a CI setup that I'm confident in (and I'm more confident in how it operates), I'm going to suggest a more positive approach to bug fixes. I don't think we need to make as extensive use of the development branch as we have been, so suggest now that we work directly on the Cheers, and thanks again for your help in maintaining the bot. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 07:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC) |
Hi, thanks for cleaning up the jstor cites on several pages. I apologize, those were generated automatically by visual editor. I'm curious if the right way to go is to use WP:UCB for all similar references moving forward as I've not been used to doing so on the source editor environment. Verbosmithie ( talk) 02:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
In your editing preference you turn on "Citation expander: automatically expand and format citations using Citation bot" and then you can use it. As for the "easy" way to use it, I often just put urls or doi's into refercence like <ref>http://www.jstor.org/stable/dsafdfd</ref><ref>10.234132/3241234</ref> and then run the bot. I should note that some jstors do not get recognized, and might require you to explicitly <ref>{{cite journal|jstor=34231234faddfasdfdas}}</ref> AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 03:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I generally put the names of newspapers in italics inside a citation for the publisher, (publisher=name here) similar to how they are displayed in Wikipedia article titles: The New York Times. Isn't italics for the name of a newspaper the norm/standard here? I haven't found any policy which states this explicitly, maybe can you point me to one for some clarity? Thanks! --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
|work=
and its aliases such as |newspaper=
? Such as"title". newspaper. publisher.
AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 23:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The error is the use of the wrong template parameter. Publishers are not italics. Perhaps I should add a list of things put in publisher= that should be in work/journal/magazine/newspaper= (Which is automatically made italics) and fix them AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Once this is merged in, the bot will start fixing the citations and converting select publishers to the work parameter, which automatically does italics. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1679 AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 04:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Like with this edit on John Adams? That's about it. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 12:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
for your work on adding new IDs like SemScholar to citation bot. This will be most useful for the broader vision of the WikiCite project. – SJ + 15:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
You have been
blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making
personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} .
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk) 12:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy).
AManWithNoPlan ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: People lied about me and I pointed it out, so the liars got upset and me pointing it out Decline reason: WP:GAB will help you understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Yamla ( talk) 13:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
IF the bot is working correctly, adding a comment to the URL should stop the bot from removing it. I have worked hard to make sure comment imply DON’T TOUCH THIS Mr Bot. There are a few exceptions, but they are far and few. I should note that access-dates are not when someone checked to see if the reference was saying what it claims to to say, but when the url was still alive. That’s why DOI, ProQuest and such don’t have access dates. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 15:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who accepted the request.
AManWithNoPlan ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: resolved issues with word choices that implies bad faith in others that was not meant to be implied Accept reason: Welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC) I'm also sorry to see you were blocked over this, and I feel a bit guilty as I was the one who started this particular rabbit running. On the upside, I'm really happy that you fixed the "minor edit" problem that concerned me, and I'll be delighted if Sandy and Andy's concerns are now settled as well. As I spend much of my time these days working on maintaining tools that bring Wikidata into infoboxes, I empathise with your desire to keep complaints and bug reports in a single place, but Wikipedia isn't neat and tidy like that. I'm even more glad that you've engaged in discourse with the editors who have had problems – it really does make a difference to the editor's experience when they raise an issue (even in the "Wrong Place™") if they get a response from a real person and they can see that they are taken seriously. One of the consequential issues is that I think we need to be clearer as a community about our expectations of responsibility. You'll find that most editors, if asked, will insist that there has to be person to "blame" for erroneous edits, whether they are made by an editor manually, or using a simple script or AWB, by a bot. I doubt that there would be many dissenting from the view that the editor who activates the bot should be the responsible person. The benefit of bots is that we get a lot of routine edits done rapidly and efficiently – we need to acknowledge that – but the disadvantage is that it is near impossible for whoever runs the bot to check all of the edits for errors – and we have to accept that as well. The flipside of that coin is that whoever triggers a bot has to pay extra attention to issues as they arise, mainly because it's the right thing to do, but also because you're likely to get it in the neck if you don't . I hope you've made some new wiki-friends (after all, we all want the same thing: to improve the encyclopedia), and I hope that Andy, Sandy, et al will feel that they can come to you if they run into Citation Bot issues in the future. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 23:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC) Cheers to you all too. It has been a hard road for all of us. But, thankfully no real trolls showed up. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 11:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC) |
Your hard work has not gone unnoticed. Thank you. Viriditas ( talk) 07:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, are you done with your large runs for now? (I ask because when you're done I want to refresh the OAbot queue.) From quarry:query/31224 I still see the usual ~44k articles: many are not fixable by citation bot (unstructured citations and such), but from a small sample I think the bot would make a successful edit on some 10-20 % of them. Nemo 13:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
AMWNP, there is a similar issue occurring to the last time we spoke, with free full text links being removed at coprolalia [2] and dementia with Lewy bodies. Last time, I didn't fully understand where to raise the issue, or what was causing it, but I recall that you or someone told me to add a comment in the URL field so it would not continue to be removed. Will these fixes at DLB work to prevent those URLs from being removed again, or do I need to inquire somewhere else? Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
the owner of the website linked to, requested that we link to the ID instead of URLs. As for PDF vs landing page, most editors prefer a landing page since they generally are much less likley to atop working: a lot of scemanticschlor pdf links that i found when testing the conversion code no longer worked and redirected to the landing page. The second reason is that landing pages are geneally much quicker to load and much more handicapped accesible. Many people find downloading ANY file to be evil and will not do it. I personaly, usually read just the abstract. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 16:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Your replies to my concerns about your disruptive editing in unlinking citation titles against common consensus lead me to believe that you intend to continue. I am therefore blocking you until you are prepared to give assurances that such disruption will not recur. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC) If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} .
RexxS (
talk) 22:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy).
AManWithNoPlan ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: I am not editing anything. There is a bot that is editing pages. I am not an operator of the bot either. I cannot take part in discussions without being unblocked. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 22:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Decline reason: Procedural decline. No longer blocked, and the block is at ANI for community review anyway. It is clear that the state of a block will rest on the shoulders of ANI, not this unblock request. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 05:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
if the bot is blocked then existing runs should die pretty fast. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 00:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I lack the skills to undo the actions of an approved bot doing an approved task. I find the request to "clean it up" while still blocked to be odd. A significant enough fraction of the links changes to ID links are copyright infringing copies that all the links would need to be checked by hand before adding, and in good faith I would have not only not add back the offending links but remove S2CID links for those. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 11:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Citation bot had to add special code to avoid adding C2 links to avoid being blocked. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 17:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
|
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Citation bot again. Thank you. Le v!v ich 16:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
url
parameters. But for now, I think it best to err on the side of caution. Cheers --
RexxS (
talk) 14:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Why do you bother making edits like these [8]? The empty parameters text doesn't harm anything on those pages, and they make it easier to provide additional information if requested. Not that I necessarily care, but I am curious. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Please discuss your changes. Using a bot to edit war is disruptive. This article was PRODded recently, and is a real shame that nobody has ever come forward before to improve it, and the only edits are trivial ones that don't seem to benefit the reader. User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts#References sums up my views on this quite well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Or? please ping me if you have advice. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
unless you have (1) hand-checked that the new url gives exactly the same page as before and (2) you have changed the access-date parameter to reflect the new url.
There is no need to change a url which I have checked for myself, for one that hasn't been checked by a human at all. Various mistakes can and do get in. For what practical gain? It anyway falsifies the access-date parameter, which surely can never be legitimate.
It also means that I must thoroughly check for accuracy every time you do one of these edits. Regrettably, because I write articles with many citations, I have not time enough.
I appreciate what you are seeking to do in general, which is constructive. Ttocserp 17:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
This url https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KVoKd9vDSxsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=J%C5%8Dch%C5%8D+canon+knees+triangle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiO2cjY57bsAhUbaRUIHcbODgU4HhC7BTAAegQIARAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false gives the full text of an exhibition guide. Anything I do to reduce the URL just seems to reduce the visibility to one page. I'm worried that if I put it in an article, the bot will make the same error. Can you see what is unusual about it? Thanks. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
AManWithNoPlan tinkering with A Woman With No Clothes On? ( Here.) It doesn't seem entirely proper. GrindtXX ( talk) 20:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Age: old enough to remember when red states meant Russia and China.
Yep, I know what you mean.
Ddspell (
talk) 21:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your help with the wrong url, and so sorry for the trouble! Thanks again. -- Ash-Gaar ( talk) 18:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the Google Book links in List of appearances of Bob Grant on stage and screen. I have edited that article a great deal, and yet, there are still things to correct! Wood and trees and all that. Best regards, Gricharduk ( talk) 04:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi regarding your edit here at Antony Blinken, I was a little confused as to why you'd remove an archive URL there, as I thought WP:DEADREF encourages archiving URLs in sources.
Sdrqaz ( talk) 16:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
You are using Citation bot to change |publisher=
to |work=
for a variety of business organizations that are actually publishers, not websites or newspapers or magazines or works. According to
ABC News,
BBC News,
CBS News,
NBC News, and
Reuters these are all businesses! They are not websites! They are not magazines! They are not TV or radio programs! Note: You seem to be correctly leaving
Fox News as a |publisher=
. Thank you for that.
You should be flipping these the other way, changing |work=
or any of its aliases to |publisher=
for
ABC News,
BBC News,
CBS News,
NBC News. When the news item is on Reuters' website, it's |publisher=Reuters
, otherwise it's |agency=Reuters
.
Also, you are using Citation bot to change certain newspapers/websites correctly from |publisher=
to |work=
, but in some cases leaving them in an incorrect form, such as [[New York Times]]
or New York Times.com
instead of [[The New York Times]]
. Also, |agency=''(Boston Globe)''
was corrected to |agency=(Boston Globe)
, but should be further corrected to |agency=The Boston Globe
, with "The" and without parentheses.
Yngvadottir: I think the comments we posted at User talk:Citation bot actually belong here. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 11:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Please stop running citation bot on Syrian Kurdistan. Levivich harass/ hound 23:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, not quite sure what happened in this sequence of edits, but it changed the citation to point to the wrong ONDB article. I've reverted for now. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 12:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Just in case you are wondering about the curious chapter-url= that you corrected at Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, it was indeed an error. The citations were originally given with one per chapter because the book is so enormous, but adopting the loc=[html option in {{ sfn}} allowed it to be cited conventionally. Well, apart from failing to correct the chapter-url=, obviously. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there a setting in the bot that will flag its edits as "minor" so they do not appear in the watchlists of editors who filter out minor edits? Thank you. soibangla ( talk) 00:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, could you please run citation bot here? Thanks! GagaNutella talk 15:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at White House COVID-19 outbreak. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on ( talk) 11:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I might be in the minority, but I'm highly skeptical / suspicious / disapproving of mass additions of these links to articles as I explain here. Thus, I made this revert. Feel free to reply to the thread at User_talk:Tony1#Greetings if you wish, thanks. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts as they relate to the objections I raise with these links. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) 17:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey there! Thanks for running Citation bot over
Category:CS1 maint: ref=harv. I think the jobs that are currently queued up for the bot will exhaust what is possible with the current settings. To clear the rest of the redundant |ref=harv
easily, a script or bot (or human) will need to find and remove them in CS1 wrapper templates. In the current population of the category (2,195 pages), I see:
There are no doubt more. My script grabs anything that starts with "Cite", so I need to manually inspect each proposed edit, but those are some of the easy pickings. Are you able/willing to add some code to the bot that removes |ref=harv
from those templates? If not, 2,000 is not that bad to do with a script. The bot has done an incredible job of reducing the population from 55,000 to 2,000 in recent weeks.
One more thing: the bot seems to be ignoring pages outside of article space. I don't know if that's intentional. I tried to feed a page full of Wikipedia-space links to it (191 pages), and the bot said "!No links to expand found".
Also pinging Deadman137, who has submitted the same category to the bot. I don't think submitting the category again will help unless the bot is modified to see the above templates. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
|ref=harv
removed. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Hi AManWithNoPlan, earlier today you edited an article I started to change a commented-out reference, removing a "ref=harv" parameter. It can't have had any impact on the article, so I assume this was some kind of mass correction. Is there somewhere I can read up on the fix you're working on? At the time I wrote it I must have thought the "ref=harv" was needed, though I stopped using the reference itself. Presumably that's changed. All the best, › Mortee talk 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually you can set that to 2500 or even 5000 if your browser can handle it: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/Citation_bot&offset=&limit=2500&target=Citation+bot Abductive ( reasoning) 21:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Basing it on diffs such as [9], [10], [11] seem to suggest that the task is gone, or why else would the nobots tag be removed without consensus to do so? But Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 18, User:Monkbot/task 18: cosmetic cs1 template cleanup, and User:Monkbot contain no indication that this task has been ended, and the last one still lists the task as active. Has something changed with the permissions to the project, or is it no longer allowed to block this task from being fulfilled, or is something else going on. Hog Farm Talk 20:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, could you refrain from activating citation bot on (my) user space pages? I’d rather be the only one editing them, as, you know, their being in my user space would suggest. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello!! Thanks for all the doi fixes you have been doing on Open ocean convection, and sorry for the trouble! All the references were generated automatically by visual editor, so I don't understand what I have done wrong. Could you explain to me my mistake in order to avoid these mistakes in the future? Thanks again!! Dandelion11 ( talk) 18:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 20:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi! What did you think of my draft article of the Statue of Mentuemhet when you looked at it? I'm still developing the article, so I would appreciate any potential feedback for future improvement. Thanks, Tyrone Madera ( talk) 18:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Why would you remove a link to an open access article with the Wikipedia library that anyone can read if they have made 500+ edits with at least 10 in the last month and have been editing for at least 6 months, with a paywalled doi that requires an account to access? The beauty of the Wikipedia library is that it makes information that would otherwise be paywalled, open to anyone who meets the criteria. I don't understand why you would make this edit, but I didn't want to revert it without discussion. I'm not very technical, I am primarily a researcher/writer, so if there is a valid reason for this change, I need to know. Thanks! SusunW ( talk) 21:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I see that Kaldari has retired. Does that mean you are now the sole maintainer of citation bot? — Epipelagic ( talk) 01:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi AManWithNoPlan
Please can you help me with a stoopid wee thing?
I see you have invoked
InternetArchiveBot a few times, e.g.
[12]. I want to invoke
InternetArchiveBot on
Sonora, but can't figure out how to do so. The only interface page I have found is
https://iabot.toolforge.org/index.php?page=runbotsingle .. but when I enter "Sonora" it says the page doesn't exist. When I enter en:Sonora
, it says it processed the page and analysed zero links, but the page it reports is
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/en:Sonora, which is just a redirect.
Also, it seems there is a batch mode, which I also can't find.
Can you help? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
for yet another prompt tweak [13] to Citation bot to keep it performing its valuable role in supporting the core policy of Verifiability. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC) |
Please stop erasing parameters off my bibliographic sources like editors, if these weren't "almost always necessary" then why would these parameters even exist? Including these does not affect the information conveyed in an article in any way shape or form, nor does it affect the experience of the reader: The most complete and the more information a bibliographic source has, the better; so please stop erasing parameters off my sources!
-- The Exterminating Angel ( talk) 23:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, AMWNP. I notice you made an edit at Retrocomputing where your edit summary said something like, just doing to create archives. When I find the archived version of a webpage at web.archive.org is out of date, I manually get it make a new one and then cite that one. Does your method automate that process? Would it be better? Or, does it require the use of special tools (e.g., CiteBot)? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 12:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, AManWithNoPlan,
I see you are working on improving this article which is good since it popped up on the "New Bad Articles List" I scan. Any ideas for a better article title than the current unwieldy one? Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi AManWithNoPlan, I was wondering why this bot changes the top level domain Google books domain from https://books.google.co.uk to https://books.google.com/books . Why do that exactly. scope_creep Talk 12:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
&hl=en
to the url. However,
this edit was apparently made by you personally. Would you kindly make sure that such edits are wanted before making any more of them? Thank you,
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk) 21:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
JoelleJay ( talk) 21:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)I thought after writing that request that I might have phrased it a bit more diplomatically. So thanks for responding to the spirit rather than the letter. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, could you please explain what do you mean
here with my toolforge account is in some weird limbo state and unusable
? As far as I can see, you have a
developer account AManWithNoPlan, which has access to the Toolforge project but is not a member of any
tool account.
Majavah (
talk!) 16:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, AManWithNoPlan. Can you anonymize references on the page Shivaji? I don't know how to run the bot. Akshaypatill ( talk) 20:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
I see here you have manually replaced Template:cite press (a redirect) with its target Template:Cite press release. As you probably know, this is a trivial edit (not changing the resulting, presented page in any way) and so deemend trivial and undesired. I propose you skip such edits. Or are there reasonings I did miss? - DePiep ( talk) 06:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup! FYI, for some reason the citation templates do not accept dashes in ISSNs. Per Civil War project guidelines, I should have included url-access paramater with pay/subscription urls, so I have rewritten them and added subscription status to reference (some students/non-profit researchers have access to Muse ENSCO, JSTOR, Haditha, etc.) Thanks again! Boo Boo ( talk) 17:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
|issn=
without your intervention, please file a bug on its talk page. It should not do that, since only a hyphen (or nothing) is valid in that parameter. It's not a numeric range. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Porting Citation Bot to simple.wiki has greatly helped, and already is giving great results. From request to final bot approval at simplewiki was under 48 hours, and entirely thanks to your work. Thank you. Mako001 (C) (T) 13:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
Hello, AManWithNoPlan. Please look at the changes you made to simple:Mimmi, simple:Dulce Amor, and simple:Donde Quiera Que Estés. Each of those changes introduced duplicate template parameters. Please check for that kind of thing when you make changes to template parameters. Thanks.
Also, please reconsider redirecting your talk page at Simple English Wikipedia. If you are active there, it would be helpful for people to be able to contact you there. In addition, automated processes will not see the redirect and will leave messages there anyway.
Please ping with any response. Thanks. -- Auntof6 ( talk) 21:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! :-) InternetArchiveBot seems to have a bug that makes it stall on pages with huge numbers of refs (some further discussion here), and it appears that your batch job #9588 has gotten hung up on a whole clump of such ref-saturated articles, tying down one of the bot's channels in the process. Would you mind please killing that batch job and creating a new batch job for the remainder of the list (minus the huge ones)? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 15:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't quite see the point of this edit. Updating the date makes it look like the doi is only recently broken (and thus might have some hope of it coming back online). Surely it is important information for anyone thinking of trying to fix it to know how long it has been broken for. Spinning Spark 10:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
For the cleanup on Aisle 5...well, actually at | |
Zapruder film. Muchly appreciated - Shearonink ( talk) 19:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC) |
Thanks for pointing out the ISSN issue. I was wondering about it. Now it is clear as you have demonstrated that that the first issue of the journal has ISSN 0857-3931 and the next one became 0857-3932. This is definitely not a valid ISSN.
Taweetham (
talk) 06:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
For helping maintain Citationbot! Andre 🚐 02:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
The Wikipedia Bot Builder Award | ||
For your brilliant work in creating the new mode for @ Citation bot. It has massively increased filling of the backlog of bare URLs which have been bare for ages and ages. Thankyou thankyou thankyou! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
Please check your work after using Citation bot. [14] Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Greatest thanx both for creating and maintaining Citation bot and for greatly improving its capabilities a few months ago! Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 13:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC) |
Is it common practice for citation bot to make changes to user namespace pages? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 13:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) ( talk) 13:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Citation bot seems to have reintroduced replacement characters into cites after they've been manually fixed. All the ones I've spotted so far have been after bot initiated by one editor who has corrected at least one himself, with ES "weird". Eagleash ( talk) 13:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I notice that you have deleted some 60+ citation links (seemingly mostly to citeseerx.ist.psu.edu). (It didn't appear to me that this was a citation bot issue, but maybe I don't know how to determine that).
In any case, based on a sample of a couple of these links, there seem to be working versions of these available from wayback archive. Is there any reason not to replace those with archive links? Fabrickator ( talk) 21:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
There I was, citing a journal article and as usual, the list of authors goes on and on. So I decided to just use authors=
to put it in as is, in the fond belief that CitationBot will surely come and clean it up, saving me the trouble of doing it by hand. Well it added bibcode etc but studiously ignored the list of authors.
Just thought I might mention it, on the off chance that you are idly filing your nails, eating chocolate, looking out the window, just waiting for the phone to ring. . Yes, I know, as if! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 00:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
AManWithNoPlan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡ 17:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 17:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I left this message for Smith609, who may not be able to repond, and since you are Thing 2 ;>) - I'll ask it here. If two major citation styles are present in a 200-citation article (see Hummingbird), I'm assuming that running the bot on the existing author formats would not convert them all to the one preferred style |last=
Is this assumption correct?
1. would each ref with Vancouver style author format need to be edited manually for the bot? 2. on so many references, the bot seems to run slowly. On what size portions would it be best for bot performance? 3. could the bot be modified (or a script created) to run on any article in edit mode to make all citations consistent in one style?
Thanks for your thoughts. Zefr ( talk) 05:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
A correction was made to Thomas Johnston (engraver) by CB suggested by you here/ Most of it is fine & correct but I am puzzled by the page range correction in a ref from pages=1020-1021 to pages=1020–1021. Template:Cite book#In-source locations states
It almost looks like CB is converting en dashes to em dashes but I think maybe it is actually converting a hyphen to an en dash? I'd just like to know for sure. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 04:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the references in Charles Brenton Fisk! I did not even realize that there were issues. Carpimaps ( talk) 13:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
... in Reform movement and Judicial reform of Alexander II. After spending so much time manually trying to spruce those up, it's lovely to see the job polished off so quickly. (I *must* learn how to use that bot!) – •Raven .talk 04:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Please do not use CitationBot to destroy a working link to the *complete* version of a public domain book, replacing it with one that doesn't, as you have now done twice in this article. Ttocserp 14:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I've just reverted for a second time your change using Citation bot to a reference: Special:Permalink/1145340951 to Special:Permalink/1145136828
You changed:
| url = https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmniaf/928/928.pdf
to:
| chapter-url = https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmniaf/928/928.pdf
The url in question does not point to the chapter (Appendix 1) specified in the citation: it points to the whole document, so the url parameter seems to me to be the correct one to use.
As far as I can tell, your change is wrong. If I am mistaken, please explain.
Michael F 1967 ( talk) 16:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to inform you that your bot's recent edit in Dzüko Valley was reverted by me. It was not intentionally done. It was necessary to restore the entire recent edits done by an edit warrior. So, yours was unfortunately but un-exclusively included. I want to request you to please re edit the page. Thanks! Haoreima ( talk) 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Do you happen to have a regex or suggestion how to find Google Books URLs? I know of https://books.google.com/whatever and https://www.google.com/books/whatever but unclear about country-specific URLs? -- Green C 13:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
https?:\/\/(?:|www\.books\.|books\.|www\.)google\.[a-zA-Z\.][a-zA-Z\.][a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?\/books https?:\/\/(?:|www\.books\.|books\.)google\.[a-zA-Z\.][a-zA-Z\.][a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?[a-zA-Z\.]?\/\?
"books.google.ac", "books.google.ad", "books.google.ae", "books.google.com.af", "books.google.com.ag", "books.google.com.ai", "books.google.al", "books.google.am", "books.google.co.ao", "books.google.com.ar", "books.google.as", "books.google.at", "books.google.com.au", "books.google.az", "books.google.ba", "books.google.com.bd", "books.google.be", "books.google.bf", "books.google.bg", "books.google.com.bh", "books.google.bi", "books.google.bj", "books.google.com.bn", "books.google.com.bo", "books.google.com.br", "books.google.bs", "books.google.bt", "books.google.co.bw", "books.google.by", "books.google.com.bz", "books.google.ca", "books.google.com.kh", "books.google.cc", "books.google.cd", "books.google.cf", "books.google.cat", "books.google.cg", "books.google.ch", "books.google.ci", "books.google.co.ck", "books.google.cl", "books.google.cm", "books.google.cn", "books.google.com.co", "books.google.co.cr", "books.google.com.cu", "books.google.cv", "books.google.com.cy", "books.google.cz", "books.google.de", "books.google.dj", "books.google.dk", "books.google.dm", "books.google.com.do", "books.google.dz", "books.google.com.ec", "books.google.ee", "books.google.com.eg", "books.google.es", "books.google.com.et", "books.google.fi", "books.google.com.fj", "books.google.fm", "books.google.fr", "books.google.ga", "books.google.ge", "books.google.gf", "books.google.gg", "books.google.com.gh", "books.google.com.gi", "books.google.gl", "books.google.gm", "books.google.gp", "books.google.gr", "books.google.com.gt", "books.google.gy", "books.google.com.hk", "books.google.hn", "books.google.hr", "books.google.ht", "books.google.hu", "books.google.co.id", "books.google.iq", "books.google.ie", "books.google.co.il", "books.google.im", "books.google.co.in", "books.google.io", "books.google.is", "books.google.it", "books.google.je", "books.google.com.jm", "books.google.jo", "books.google.co.jp", "books.google.co.ke", "books.google.ki", "books.google.kg", "books.google.co.kr", "books.google.com.kw", "books.google.kz", "books.google.la", "books.google.com.lb", "books.google.com.lc", "books.google.li", "books.google.lk", "books.google.co.ls", "books.google.lt", "books.google.lu", "books.google.lv", "books.google.com.ly", "books.google.co.ma", "books.google.md", "books.google.me", "books.google.mg", "books.google.mk", "books.google.ml", "books.google.com.mm", "books.google.mn", "books.google.ms", "books.google.com.mt", "books.google.mu", "books.google.mv", "books.google.mw", "books.google.com.mx", "books.google.com.my", "books.google.co.mz", "books.google.com.na", "books.google.ne", "books.google.com.nf", "books.google.com.ng", "books.google.com.ni", "books.google.nl", "books.google.no", "books.google.com.np", "books.google.nr", "books.google.nu", "books.google.co.nz", "books.google.com.om", "books.google.com.pk", "books.google.com.pa", "books.google.com.pe", "books.google.com.ph", "books.google.pl", "books.google.com.pg", "books.google.pn", "books.google.com.pr", "books.google.ps", "books.google.pt", "books.google.com.py", "books.google.com.qa", "books.google.ro", "books.google.rs", "books.google.ru", "books.google.rw", "books.google.com.sa", "books.google.com.sb", "books.google.sc", "books.google.se", "books.google.com.sg", "books.google.sh", "books.google.si", "books.google.sk", "books.google.com.sl", "books.google.sn", "books.google.sm", "books.google.so", "books.google.st", "books.google.sr", "books.google.com.sv", "books.google.td", "books.google.tg", "books.google.co.th", "books.google.com.tj", "books.google.tk", "books.google.tl", "books.google.tm", "books.google.to", "books.google.tn", "books.google.com.tr", "books.google.tt", "books.google.com.tw", "books.google.co.tz", "books.google.com.ua", "books.google.co.ug", "books.google.com.uy", "books.google.co.uz", "books.google.com.vc", "books.google.co.ve", "books.google.vg", "books.google.co.vi", "books.google.com.vn", "books.google.vu", "books.google.ws", "books.google.co.za", "books.google.co.zm", "books.google.co.zw", "books.google.co.uk"
Oh this is great, that would have taken a long time to figure out. Thanks much! -- Green C 14:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could revisit this edit as it is missing the parameter name and causing a cite date error. Many thanks. Keith D ( talk) 17:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for helping me fix the citations in the article I was working on in my sandbox. You are a real lifesaver!!! You are the "man with the plan"!!! Garagepunk66 ( talk) 22:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The Citation Barnstar | |
This is a token of my appreciation for your help in me sorting out that whole mess with those red-letter citations. Your assistance has made it possible for me to do a quality expansion on a major article. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 23:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC) |
Hi. The reason I use the template redirect {{paywall}} in the Deaths in 2023 article instead of {{subscription required}} (and will continue to do so) is to cut down on the number of characters being used in the page coding, which as you will realise is already over-bloated by necessary descriptions used during entries, and other technical additions, which make up the list in its entirety. This is just by way of explanation - as the redirect produces the same message next to the source on tooltip hover [(subscription required)], I see no reason why the redirect cannot be of valid use in its shorter form. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 18:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (
☎) has given you a
Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{ subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
~~~~ 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 19:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Webservice request timed out
The tool responsible for the URL you have requested, https://citations.toolforge.org/process_page.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&page=Foobar, is taking too long to respond. If you have reached this page from somewhere else...
This URI is managed by the citations tool, maintained by AManWithNoPlan, Dbarratt, Kaldari, Mattsenate, Maximilianklein, Smith609.
You may wish to notify the tool's maintainers (above) about the error. If you maintain this tool
The web service for this tool is running but cannot be reached. Please check the error logs of your web service.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Could you run the bog against that category? It's exceeding limits, and I'd rather not have to break it down in 12-14 parts and constantly monitor where the run it at over most of December. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for getting that set straight! Looks like I had two revisions selected when I was looking at the diff, and missed the one that actually made the crazy change. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for replying on the Leibniz integral rule Talk page and referring to a scrollbar setting for Safari on iPad. It would have heen very helpful, had I been able to find such a setting for iPadOS 17.2. But I have not, even after over half an hour of searching, and I am at a loss. [Yes, I know how to find “Instellingen”, “Algemeen”, “Scherm en helderheid”, “Toegankelijkheid”, ”Zoek”, etc. (Settings, General, Screen and brightness, Accessibility, Search”), which quite a few websites are referring to. But a “always show scrollbar” setting just does not appear.] I am abl, though, to do the horizontal scrolling (as well as the vertical scrolling). The screen just gives no clue as to the possibility of scrolling. If you are knowledgeable and have a good idea, that would be welcome. Would I need a software extension for such “luxury” functionality? Redav ( talk) 04:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Any progress on [15]? This seems a very low hanging fruit, just adapt whatever you have for & → & ? Headbomb (alt) ( talk) 16:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I was recently calling the bot mostly via https://citations.toolforge.org/ so don't have any new NULL DOIs so far locally accumulated. Do you have access to the NULL DOIs accumulated at citations.toolforge.org?
However, you you make replacements from POST to GET in the future, I will be glad to participate in testing and this way will get the NULL DOIs to accumulate.
Does it makes sense? Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 11:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)