User talk:AAlertBot/Archive

Will we have to make new subscriptions?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Article alerts#Will we have to make new subscriptions?

Page size?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Article alerts#Page size?

Some doubts

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Article alerts#Some doubts.

Bot is down

AALertBot hasn't edited in three days and needs restarted. (Sorry if the prefered location for this is elsewhere - I didn't feel it was really a bug report and wasn't sure where else to put it.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated

If you're not already aware, you may want to review Category:Article_alert_reports_with_deprecated_header. --Slivicon (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're aware. I made it :) This is pages still using the old (previous bot) sub-page format for headers (because old bot couldn't preserve any content from the report page; now it can). It needs an admin to delete the subpage and move the contents to the main page. Wasn't a real priority as it works identically for the end user. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AAlertBot not using bot flag for edits

Hello. I just noticed that AAlertBot is not using the bot flag for its edits. You have to manually set this flag for API edits made by the bot even if you are using a bot account. Search for 'bot' at mw:API:Edit for more info. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. That has always been intentional so editor's can watchlist major changes on bot's report pages. The bot does indeed use the flag everywhere else it edits. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia files for deletion

A category that this bot involves itself, Category:Wikipedia files for deletion, has been proposed to be renamed Category:Wikipedia files for discussion. This notice has been placed as a courtesy in the event that the category is renamed per a note on the category. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

sheep

Lamb104 (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft namespaces

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Bugs#Draft_namespaces

Inactive?

Any idea about why the bot hasn't updated any alert pages since the 9 June? --The1337gamer (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, didn't notice it stopped running. I've just ran it. This subscription managed to confuse the bot. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bot not running since Sept 30

Hello, I just wanted to report that the bot hasn't run since 04:25, 30 September 2016 (Eastern U.S.). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: so you know about it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malfunction

@Hellknowz: Bot has stopped functioning since 08:13, 5 May 2017. ToThAc (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bot runs daily, not continuously. I don't see the issue here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot not working

@Hellknowz: The bot hasn't been working for some days now._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, hadn't noticed. Thanks for pinging me. (P.S. pings don't work unless you add them in the same new message as your signature.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is problematic

This is having an "automated canvassing" effect, especially when it comes to WP:RM and other processes that exist for the express purpose of getting broad input and mitigating the effects of "local consensus" (often to defy the WP:P&G for a pet topic). The very first rule of WP:CANVASS is "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus" (emphasis added) This bot is doing the exact opposite, and triggering sprees of bloc voting by narrow special-interest groups of editors (i.e., wikiprojects). As the editorial pool contracts, this becomes an increasingly serious problem, but it's been one for a long time. These days, wikiprojects are mostly good ol' boys clubs that erect barriers to editorial participation by new users (and long-term ones not part of the particular clique). A decade ago we needed wikiprojects and tools for them like this, because they helped marshal a river of mostly short-term volunteers into doing the near impossible: creating millions of articles from scratch. That phase of the organization is long over. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to shut one of the most popular bot in the history of Wikipedia down, you'll have to bring more to the table than vague accusations of WP:CANVASSing. If you want to delete an article like particle, you'll have to offer quite the argument to argue that WP:PHYS and WP:CHEM shouldn't be notified of that. It's also one of the very few ways that obscure WP:PRODs might actually get reviewed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject notification is not considered canvassing. Off-Wiki notifications or individual user talk page notifications could be, depending on the scale and purpose. WikiProject participants must also still follow policies like other editors (and must justify their AfD arguments). They just may know more, or be more interested about, a particular topic. This is also distinct from close affiliation conflict of interest (and of course, editors with such COI may or may not be participants of a WikiProject). I personally have found WikiProjects I'm not a member of welcoming to my queries or suggestions, so I cannot say that I agree with the clique or elitism claim, but I don't consider it impossible (I would also assume some POV pushing editors to consider them as such, but I'm not claiming that it's your case)... I agree that the usefulness of some WikiProjects may have been greater before; various which were once important appear dead. To broaden participation, deletion sorting lists are also used. —Paleo Neonate - 00:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot not running?

Since AAlertBot changed its status to "running" on August 29th, it hasn't made any edits. Does it need poking? Just in case Hellkownz hadn't noticed... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notice. Yeah, the bot crashed. I'm running it now. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot not running? - 2

I don't see any evidence that the bot has done any updates since October 31. Has something happened here? NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Headbomb's PC crashed in the middle of the run and I didn't notice. It'll run tomorrow. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot making bad changes

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs#CfD discussion link section part removed

Deprod and page move misinterpreted as redirection

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts, in the 09:21, 27 January 2018 version, there is the entry

27 Jan 2018 – Railway stations built with a special purpose in the United Kingdom (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Snickers2686 (t · c): A page to solely list important railway stations with no notation of encyclopedic importance or sources

which was correct at the time. In the 09:23, 28 January 2018 version, it now reads

27 Jan 2018 – Railway stations built with a special purpose in the United Kingdom (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Snickers2686 (t · c) was redirected to Special purpose UK railway stations (talk · edit · hist) by BeMoreLikeSloths (t · c) on 27 Jan 2018

In fact, the article was deprodded at 13:33, 27 January 2018 by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) and then moved to the shorter name at 14:38, 27 January 2018 by BeMoreLikeSloths (talk · contribs), following a comment of mine at Talk:Railway stations built with a special purpose in the United Kingdom#Should this article be a list? Suggestion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No bot run for 6 days 2018

Just posting a query on bot status. Brad (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it crashed. I ran it just now. Hopefully, it will continue tomorrow. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with RFD discussion Alert

Hellknowz and Headbomb: There seems to be something up with this RFD in the Alerts: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_12#Twitter_redirects_recently_created_by_R64Q. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Green_Bay_Packers/Article_alerts for an example. They seem to be stuck in the alerts queue even though the discussion was closed 4 days ago and the bot has run since. Let me know if I am missing something. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Hellknowz and Headbomb. Any ideas? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it briefly and I have no idea why they were staying reported as open. Probably some category cache failure or some banner somewhere was added/removed mid-way the process. I don't really have time for extensive debugging on this, unfortunately. They seem to be gone now. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient markup

Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Bugs#Ancient_markup