User talk:MadmanBot/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

MartinBot

Just so you know, your bot was reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2 for vandalism. It seemed to me like the error was with the other bot, so I removed it. But maybe it's worth looking into which edits triggered the report. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what the edits are. Large sections of text are being replaced with a template, and naturally, MartinBot detects the removal of a (relatively) large amount of text. But I'm at the console and can deal with it. Thanks! — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well I blocked MartinBot temporarily - but if you can deal with it, should I unblock the other bot? ugen64 14:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, your bot was whitelisted and so it won't be reverted any more. ugen64 15:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely unblock MartinBot. Good lord, I'm fine with a few false positives. I adore MartinBot. He does such good work. :) — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the whitelist, though. I didn't know it was possible. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice on semi-protect template bot

Hey there, I noticed that you've picked up the task of writing a bot to add semi-protect templates to articles that need them, and I just wanted to make one recommendation: Use the small version of the template when adding with the bot ({{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}). My reasoning for thinking this way is that there might be a reason the article didn't initially have a prominent template, so this would probably be more in line with the wishes of editors. Whatever you choose to do, best of luck, and thanks for doing this. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For more information on how I am implementing this task, please see my BRFA; I've planned from the start to use the small=yes parameter. Thank you! — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I see everything's been addressed there. Good work! --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

A more useful edit summary might be, er, more useful. :) The link to the discussion is nice but it would be even nicer if the edit summary just said "Adding article to ___ topic" or whatever. --ElKevbo 11:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I shall consider a change summary in the future. :) — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 15:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Namespaces

Please do not place protected templates in userspace: it is up to the user whether or not they want a template added. All other namespaces are fine, however. —METS501 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Modification made. — madman bum and angel 03:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection template on other templates

Hi. Could you implement a little change to the bot? When adding a protection template to another template, this should be done as <noinclude>{{...}}</noinclude>, otherwise the protection notice goes on all pages including the template. Tizio 10:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Now it does this on every page, because any page can be transcluded. — madman bum and angel 23:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Could you please keep the noincludes and the protection template on the same line? This would simplify the work of DumbBOT in removing them when protection expires. Tizio 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

They are, as far as I know. — madman bum and angel 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea Charms Protection

<scratching head> Can you explain to me why the article on Chelsea Charms was marked by the bot as semi-protected, when the last two edits prior to this act were on July 23 and July 8th? Tabercil 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is. The article used to be marked as semi-protected; Alias777 removed the template, feeling it was "no longer necessary", on 17:25, 19 June 2007. However, that didn't remove the semi-protection; an administrator must do that. The page is currently semi-protected, as of 01:29, 28 February 2007.

Special:Log for Chelsea Charms

Thank you, — madman bum and angel 15:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Okay... never occured to me that it'd still be semi-protected after all this time. I honestly thought the protection had expired. Tabercil 19:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits by your bot

With regards to edits like this made by your bot, surely it would be appropriate to mark them minor? Picaroon (t) 20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, though it's somewhat redundant, as bot edits are hidden from Special:Recentchanges in any case. But once this run is complete, I will make it so.

Thank you! — madman bum and angel 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding categories to redirect pages

Please make sure that when your bot adds categories to protected redirects, it adds them below the actual redirect text, because that only works when it's on the first line. Eg. this edit at Template:Infobox Biography broke the infobox in a lot of articles. - Bobet 22:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The bot normally skips redirects, but it looks for #REDIRECT , not #REDIRECT:. To be safe, I'll just have it check for #REDIRECT. — madman bum and angel 22:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot blocked

The addition of the protected tagging is not listed on the bot's user page. Additionally, there are comments on the user talk of the bot to stop.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion list?

I have reverted your bot's edits to the Indian Jurisdiction templates. It made the template code break. The template is used in thousands of Indian city/town articles. The protection template was making HTML code to show up and made the infoboxes hard to read. Could you please add Infobox Indian Jurisdiction/Parameters and Infobox Indian Jurisdiction to an exclusion list? Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what HTML code you mean, especially as in templates, the {{pp-semi-protected}} template is not included. However, I have added a {{bots}} directive to tell my bot to stay away.

Cheers! — madman bum and angel 02:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ganeshk (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot adding protection templates

Please stop. Adding these templates is unnecessary and simply floods watchlists and adds clutter to the pages. These pages are already listed in Special:Protectedpages and the information about protected pages is already displayed to anyone who attempts to edit them. —Centrx→talk • 23:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This task was requested by a user at Wikipedia:Bot requests and approved for trial by the Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group. I apologize for the inconvenience and I am certain that your opposition will be taken into consideration when making the final decision as to whether or not to approve this task.

Thank you, — madman bum and angel 00:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, makes some trouble. In Tom_Cruise#External_links you can see that the template does not work with listings. And IIRC it did before. I am not so educated in how those templates etc. work, so if you could fix it? (And maybe check if other templates are affected as well?). Thanks -- Windharp 09:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If there was a problem, it appears to have been fixed by Tizio. Thanks! — madman bum and angel 16:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Roy Oldham

Whats the PP on Roy Oldham for? Is it bot overdrive or bot got access to OTRS now? Mike33 - t@lk 17:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

16:51, 27 April 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs) protected Roy Oldham (enough nonsense [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Semi-protection is still in effect. — madman bum and angel 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I should have asked WHY? Why is Roy Oldham semi-protected? How long is it intended to go on and above all what reasons does a bot make these decisions. Roy Oldham is the longest serving Alderman in England and gets a lot of publicity, it would be foolish to disallow editors to edit the page. There has been no warring there since April. Again reasons? Mike33 - t@lk 22:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to talk to Doc Glasgow about that, not I. The bot didn't semi-protect the article; it simply added the icon that made it easier to tell that it was semi-protected. Also, editors can edit the page; they just must have been registered for four days. If you want semi-protection removed, WP:RFPP is the place for that. — madman bum and angel 23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot blocked

I blocked the bot because it is breaking templates, as in . The newline after the tag is the culprit in this case: It added a big space before the quotation. I'm sure there are others affected. Please go through and check: — Omegatron 00:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that this task had been stopped long ago and the BRFA, which was approved for trial, was withdrawn? Or the note from the last unblocking admin who noted, Authorised for trial; comment more on the BRFA, do not just block. Furthermore, the bot does more than that.? :\ — madman bum and angel 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Caffeine unprotection

This bot's edit to caffeine () to semi-protect it seems unwarranted then (I see no vandalism or changes that were reverted that needed to be stop) and even more unwarranted now (as there haven't been problems since then). If there's no good reason to protect, article should be unprotected; I'm asking the "user" who made the protection change to revert it, as per policy. Cheers. Telso 03:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot did not semi-protect the article, it merely pointed out that it was semi-protected. Cheers. — madman bum and angel 02:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Which of the "Tasks approved by the Bot Approvals Group" does this pointing out fall under? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot applying redundant banner

Please see this edit. I had just puta "SharedIPEDU" banner on a page when the bot came in right behind me and placed a second copy of the banner. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Exact same thing here too. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Most likely a race condition; the bot checks to see if any shared IP template has already been applied; it must have just requested that data from a lagged slave or something. Thanks for the report. — madman bum and angel 21:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Which of the "Tasks approved by the Bot Approvals Group" does this addition of a "SharedIPEDU" banner fall under? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I have not recently updated the bot's user page. Approval is here. — madman bum and angel 16:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hi. The bot removed my warning when applying the SharedIPEDU banner. I assume it was an edit conflict but that can be confusing. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 05:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)