User talk:Anomie

Despite T360488 asking them not to, Toolforge admins have gone ahead and broken AnomieBOT's scripts. Keeping things running properly will likely require manual intervention until they fix that or give me a usable workaround.

If you want AnomieBOT to do something, please ask at User talk:AnomieBOT. Thanks.

This user's talk page has archives: 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Why is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BsoykaBot 3 just being ignored for weeks now? Can you advise or expedite? Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't a whole lot of BAGgers active at the moment. I don't know why the ones active haven't done anything with it yet. Anomie⚔ 18:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look, or advise who I should bug next? Dicklyon (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to look into that one at the moment. Anomie⚔ 21:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, Finch (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've gotten one user Kys5g creating FFD logs before your AnomieBOT recently because your bot seems apparently late to create FFD logs automatically. What can you do about the bot and that user? George Ho (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT does not appear to have been late, when I check the logs it's first checking the new day's page at 23:00 UTC the day before as usual, just in time for the new day to start (see for example the creation of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 22). Kys5g for some reason created Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 23 at 09:07 UTC the day before, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 24 at 10:55 UTC the day before, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 25 at 12:15 UTC the day before, and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 26 at 03:17 UTC the day before. And he did Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 27 and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 May 28 at the same time, several days early.

As for what can I do about the user, I can ping him and ask why he's creating them so much ahead of time. I see you already tried at User talk:Kys5g#Creating of FFD logs but got a somewhat confused response. I also see on his user page that he has a "This user comes from Vietnam" user box, so perhaps part of it is that he's thinking in UTC+07:00 time? Although he's still been doing it early even for that timezone. Anomie⚔ 23:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#RFC: Sever WP:MASSCREATE from WP:BOTPOL: note as per Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Statement should be neutral and brief, RfCs should start with a short, neutral statement ending with a timestamp, so Legobot can copy it to the various lists of RfCs. isaacl (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep that in mind for the future, but I'd rather not go back and reformat it now. Is there another option to make Legobot happy? Anomie⚔ 02:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a datestamp after the question, hopefully that's good enough. Anomie⚔ 02:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legobot tries to copy everything up to the first timestamp. I don't remember the exact maximum number of characters it will copy, but if it's longer than that, another editor such as Redrose64 might come along and decide on a short summary for you. So my suggestion is to start with a brief sentence or two with a following timestamp, so you can control what editors who use the lists and the notification service will see. isaacl (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how would Redrose64 do that? In some undocumented but useful manner, or by reformatting the RFC itself in a manner that I'd think breaks the flow of it? Anomie⚔ 03:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without going back to look through their contributions, I believe by doing something like copying your question to the top of the RfC and adding a timestamp at the end. But the point is doing it yourself will forestall getting into a dispute with what someone else does (since even the RfC introductory text is subject to consensus agreement, with English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions). isaacl (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement - as amended here - is briefer, but it's still not neutral: after removal of the <strong>...</strong> tags, the third paragraph (beginning "Personally I'm ...") is the most obvious. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I guessed right, the answer was "break the actual RFC to make the bot-list look slightly nicer". Sigh. Anomie⚔ 23:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]