JAn Dudík

Attention: I am active on cs:wikipedia, and I'm reading this talk page only sometimes. If you have some urgent message, please, leave it on my cs talk page. If you have something about my bot, please leave diff or link, in other case I'll ignore your cries.

Bot in autonomous mode usually doesn't bigger changes (removing), only if is manually assisted, and in case there was mixed interwiki.

See also Interwiki Bot FAQ

Before you ask, why bot removed some interwiki link, please check:

• Does the removed article still exist?
• Are both articles non-disambiguations or both disambiguations?
• Are both articles about the same thing?
• Has removed article interwiki, which leads back to the same article?

Older discussions: /archive-01, /archive-02

---

Minor bot malfunction

I just spotted an error the bot made here months ago, where a pair of links starting with [[en:]] were removed by the bot. Obviously en: should not have been used in the links in the first place, but the bot still mangled the text in a way that was not spotted for six months. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention.--Father Goose (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your robot is wrong in this article

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civil_union&diff=337786387&oldid=337560300 92.252.116.41 (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See my answer on my cs talk page. JAn Dudík (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

English article covers multiple aspects, so links were valid

The bot removed 6 interwiki links at Massacre of the Innocents, presumably because the foreign-language articles were mainly about Holy Innocents' Day. The English article about the (alleged) martyrs includes the Feast Day as a section. The links were therefore valid, as evidenced by the links from the foreign articles back to the English one. Could the bot allow such links given the latter evidence? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In many languages exists both (or three, picture) articles, but interwiki should be 1:1. most of removed articles links back to Massacre_of_the_Innocents#Feast_days, but there migt not be interwiki under section. There is no good solution for this problem - only merging in other labguages or create separate article in en. JAn Dudík (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki

Hi. Can you please point me to the rules that state that one shouldn't add interwiki with other backlinks before the interwiki links in the article in question have been fixed? - Soulkeeper (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

With this link is broken interwiki. I don't know en rules, but this is problem for bots and for interlanguage linking. If is this article about the same, so i shouldn't be linked from cherry and should have all intewiki same as wild cherry. JAn Dudík (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Names and disambiguation pages

It has been accepted that different language wikipedias treat articles/index pages/lists about names differently from one another. Therefore, interwiki links between them should be allowed to remain. Please see the discussion at Template talk:Dmbox#Surname pages should be considered by bots as disambig pages. I am raising this because I reversed this edit by the bot. It appears that you may need to re-program the bot to stop removing links between name articles and disambiguation pages; where these are the closest match, they are fine.

I don't understand why the bot removed sv:Natanael from the en page Nathaniel anyway, as both are categorised as name articles, not disambiguations. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is problem. Because surnames are between other articles, I can not recognize that article is about surname. And when are mixed more articles togetdher, the problem is bigger. In this case there were found links to prophet and to name, some of them disambiguations, some not. I this case I am not able to recognize only from name what is what, so I look for backlinks only. And when in source language is page dismbig and bot fout both links to dis and non-dis, it takes only the disambig one. So, You can select the correct links and tell me, I'll repait the others. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great improvement if your bot refrained from performing any changes – primum non nocere – if it has problems identifying a clear-cut solution? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is nod mixed interwiki, bot would skip links which are nondisambiguations. But when there is mixes, I try to repair it, roboasisted. And I can make mistake. If somebody only says it's bad, it does not help me. When you say which solution is better, I can fix it. JAn Dudík (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Then please stop the bot from removing links between English name pages and other language disambiguation pages. I suggest that if any of these apply:

1. the page has "name" in the title, or
2. the page includes {{given name}} or {{surname}} templates, or
3. any category on the page includes "name",

then links to disambiguation pages should not be removed. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

These templates are not correctly inserted in Mediawiki:Disambiguationspage, so bot cannot recognize them. Because all removings made by my bot are manually controlled, When I noticed that page is name I try to solve it manually, but not every name can be recognized from name of article and in some cases there are other difficulties. But without link to problematic page I cannot repair it more correctly. There is one additional problem: when bot find both dis- and non-disambiguation page in some language, it skips the "bad" possibility automaically. JAn Dudík (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

no:Kretsløp

The bot JAnDbot removes the interwiki no:Kretsløp from Cycle. Can you please explain why? Gabriel Kielland (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem is in de:, there are two disambiguations: de:Kreislauf and de:Zyklus. how to solve it? JAn Dudík (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. The distinction between Kreislauf and Zyklus probably might go amiss for the average English speaking. The bot is still operating wrongly, though. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with de:Zyklus and de:Kreislauf linking to Cycle. If the bot can't handle it, leave the links alone. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Military

I have the same question about bg:Въоръжени сили (see here). --Nk (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There were many mixed articles, the name of BG is like Armed forces, maybe I deleted id for this similarity. JAn Dudík (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But you have kept ru:Вооружённые силы. :) The problem comes from the articles here - they have virtually the same definition. --Nk (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Vitis & Vitis

Hi JAn, the Bot did this a short time ago.

• Does the removed article still exist?    (Yes)
• Are both articles non-disambiguations or both disambiguations?    (Yes)
• Are both articles about the same thing?    (Yes)
• Has removed article interwiki, which leads back to the same article? ( if by this you mean like a double-redir, then No)

Since all "remove" criteria are unmet here, I'm putting it back. Just wonder why it did it(?).. If I'm missing something, please tell me. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You answered No to the last question. Correct solution is replace interwiki in it:article, but you did not replace it, so error in interwiki is now back. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fiat bot edit

Could you please explain why the bot is removing valid interwiki links to language pages? For example Fiat? --Traveler100 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

For fiat please check Fiat and Fiat Automobiles - many interwikis are duplicate. JAn Dudík (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sol interwiki

I partial-reverted[1] the change[2] of the Japanese interwiki link from Sol. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

interwikis again

[3] removed several valid interwikis. I went to the other wikis and I restored the links to the en: article. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

in some wikis are two different articles. JAn Dudík (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Please add an exception so your bot won't edit the interwikis in The Best of the Pink Floyd / Masters of Rock. enwiki has one article for both editions of the same album. Other wikis have two separate articles for each edition. In those wikis, both articles should have interwikis pointing to the same article in enwiki. There is no reason that some articles can't have a two-to-one relationship instead of a one-to-one relationship, and I don't want to edit-war with your bot over this. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please!

As for the Tokyo article, you are always wrong. I'm afraid you do not understand the article. We've talked about it before, haven't we? Now you removed a lot of valid links again:[4]. [5], [6], [7]. [8], [9], [10], [11] , etc. Do I have to show them all? I'm begging you. Please leave the article alone. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, read talk page for Tokyo. When I placed here links for Tokyo only, it was wrong and was reverted. When I placel links for Tokyo province only, t was wrong and was reverted. In tat situation I don't know, which links I may place for non duplicates and for no revert. JAn Dudík (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The en Tokyo article is about Tokyo as one of the Municipalities of Japan, in other words it's one of the Prefectures of Japan. In Japan there are 4 different names to describe the 47 subnational jurisdictions. It seems to be very difficult to understand for people outside Japan. In ja, it's 東京都 and 都 is translated as prefecture or metropolis. But Tokyo is commonly called just "Tokyo" like New York city is often called as New York. So the en article title is just "Tokyo". And a lot of articles in other languages too. As for this one, it uses "東京都"/Tokyo-to and there is a sentence "Dit is ook een van die 47 prefekture van Japan." So it's a valid link. And this one is categorized "Prefecturas de Chapón". So it's valid too. You cannot judge whether it is valid or not by the article name. You have to look at the content. I don't think a bot can do it. To tell the truth, I don't understand most of the non-alphabetical language links at all. Some are un-translatable by G-translate. But it seems to me that most of just "Tokyo" articles are about 東京都/Tokyo-to/Tokyo prefecture and valid link. Oda Mari (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

• News and notes: Most linked websites on Wikipedia, New York Wiki-Conference, and more

• In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities

• Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000

• Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?

• Technology report: Reusability of MediaWiki code, Google Summer of Code: Interwiki transclusion, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey there JAn Dudik!! How are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley781 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes analyzed, Foundation report, Main page bias, brief news

• In the news: WikiLeaks and Wikipedia; Google–WP collaboration to translate health information

• Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky

• Dispatches: Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size

• WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force

• Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th

• Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more

• Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

• News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes

• In the news: Public Policy Initiative, Houellebecq plagiarism?, Article revisions as book

• Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment

• Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration

• WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab

• Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

• From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost

• News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes

• In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories

• Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

JAnD bot removed Steiner education interwiki articles from Waldorf education page

Hi, the JAnDbot removed interwikis from fr, fi, da, no and nn articles [12] from the en Waldorf education articles. Waldorf education also goes by the name Steiner education or Steiner schools, especially in certain other countries. These interwiki links are correct and I have reverted the change:

• Does the removed article still exist? Yes
• Are both articles non-disambiguations or both disambiguations? Yes, both are non-disambiguations
• Are both articles about the same thing? Yes: Steiner education and Steiner schools = Waldorf education
• Has removed article interwiki, which leads back to the same article? No

Perhaps an exception should be included in the bot for this case. Merci, EPadmirateur (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I see that nn: and no: are correct, but others are problematic - see log:

======Post-processing [[cs:Waldorfská pedagogika]]======
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:pl
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:eo
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:sk
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:sv
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:de
==============================
Links to wikipedia:pl
  (1) Found link to [[pl:Pedagogika waldorfska]] in:
        [[ar:مدرسة فالدورف]]
        [[ca:Pedagogia Waldorf]]
        [[cs:Waldorfská pedagogika]]
        [[de:Waldorfpädagogik]]
        [[en:Waldorf education]]
        [[eo:Valdorfa pedagogio]]
        [[es:Pedagogía Waldorf]]
        [[et:Waldorfpedagoogika]]
        [[fa:آموزش والدوروف]]
        [[fi:Steinerkoulu]]
        [[he:חינוך ולדורף]]
        [[hr:Waldorfska pedagogija]]
        [[hu:Waldorf-pedagógia]]
        [[ja:シュタイナー教育]]
        [[lv:Valdorfpedagoģija]]
        [[nl:Vrijeschoolonderwijs]]
        [[no:Steinerskoler]]
        [[pt:Pedagogia Waldorf]]
        [[ru:Вальдорфское образование]]
        [[sk:Waldorfská pedagogika]]
        [[sv:Waldorfpedagogik]]
        [[uk:Вальдорфська педагогіка]]
        [[vi:Giáo dục Waldorf]]
        [[zh:华德福教育]]
  (2) Found link to [[pl:Szkoła Rudolfa Steinera]] in:
        [[da:Rudolf Steiner-skole]]
        [[de:Waldorfschule]]
        [[eo:Valdorfa lernejo]]
        [[fr:Pédagogie Steiner-Waldorf]]
        [[nn:Steinerskulen]]
        [[sk:Waldorfská škola]]
        [[sv:Waldorfskola]]

I think that pl, sk, eo, sv de, fr and da should be second group of articles. JAn Dudík (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki removal

The bot is removing some interwiki portal links[13] even though the targets are still there. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because on some languages are both portals about environment and ecology. JAn Dudík (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Err... no? I know that Chinese's portal is definitely environment and not ecology. Echo with Japanese's portal. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

But most of backlinks was to ecology, not to environment. JAn Dudík (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Inferior links

Your bot, JAnDbot, replaced two good inter-wiki links with inferior links at Aleph number. I reverted it. See this diff. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Do not edit-war

Please do not edit war. First your bot and then you inappropriately removed an interwiki link and the explanatory comments. In case you don't understand the comments, the Swedish wikipedia has two separate articles: sv:Flytkraft (which is buoyancy); and sv:Arkimedes princip (which is Archimedes' principle). The English wikipedia has a single article covering these two related topics. It is perfectly sensible for the English article to have two interwiki links to the two Swedish articles. Also please check your edit summary: "-duplicate interwiki (no backlink), - comment from interwiki (every bot will move it up)". The interwiki links are not 'duplicate' as they are to different articles. Both you and your bot ought to be able to see that. The comments are in place for the benefit of human editors, and it's not the place of either you or your bot to remove them. --RexxS (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are two articles, but correct is only one link to one language, so one of them should be duplicate. swedish article sv:Flytkraft have no interwiki, so it can be removed from en too. And comments in interwiki section are useless, because interwiki bots move everything from interwiki to the top. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is correct to have two links to two different articles. The concept of "one link to one language" is bureaucratic nonsense, and has no basis in improving the encyclopedia. The purpose of the links is to aid navigation, and if you wanted to do something useful, you could correct what you see as a problem by adding interwiki links in sv:Flytkraft. At present your logic is that you want to remove a link from en-wiki because sv-wiki doesn't already have a reciprocal link; can't you see that you are destroying navigation, not building the web? Please don't tell me that comments are useless, as I can assure you that they are understood by human editors, even if your bot is incapable of that. This encyclopedia is not constructed for the convenience of bots. I don't believe that your edits that I mention above are constructive, and I'd be grateful you'd take a moment to review my complaint in the spirit of improving Wikipedia, rather than telling it me that the bot works in a particular way, so that's how it has to be. --RexxS (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

@RexxS: Hear, hear.
I took the liberty to follow RexxS' suggestion to add English Buoyancy to the Swedish Flytkraft. Hope that'll assuage the bots. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Jemdet Nasr and Jemdet Nasr period

Hi, the English wiki has an article on Jemdet Nasr (archaeological site) and I recently created Jemdet Nasr period (archaeological culture). Previously, pages in other wikis termed either Jemdet Nasr or Jemdet Nasr all linked to Jemdet Nasr, but I moved all the foreign pages termed Jemdet Nasr period/culture to Jemdet Nasr period. However, your bot placed them back, even though that is now incorrect (see this diff. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem was, that you removed links, but only in one language and there was no link to new article. Bot found only one article in each language and added all to all. If bot found duplicate links, it will skip it or operator must select correct links. I repaired it now. JAn Dudík (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

difference between the person and the person's book

You have changed the article Book of Malachi. Adding: de:Maleachi, jv:Maleakhi, sv:Malaki. Please, realize the difference between the person and the person's book! There is a huge chaos about this. Euty (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I know, there is difference, but I must select correct version form backlinks, ande when backlinks are bad...JAn Dudík (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I know. But can you help to fix this problem? Euty (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Give me correct version ad ask me (done) JAn Dudík (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well. I do not know how I can give you the correct version. But in the correct WP there should be two groups. One group with only the Malachi's articles and the other group with only the Book of Malachi articles. The members (articles written in different languages) should be linked only if they are in the same group. So the Book of Malachi's articles must be linked with each others, also the Malachi articles written in different languages must be linked. But there must not be linked any Malachi articles with any Book of Malachi articles. I have no idea how this can be done (in all languages). Euty (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Reflector sight

The BOT seems to have made some erroneous changes per this diff so i reverted it. Reflector sight, Reflex sight, Red dot sight, etc are very mixed up re: set/subset across all of Wikipedia and its beyond a BOT to sort it out. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There is only one question, which of two fi: links is correct. ja: is redirect to another article, so is incorrect. uk: article have all links to another Kolimator. JAn Dudík (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Moss

This change was incorrect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Repaired. JAn Dudík (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Series and parallel circuits

I have reverted this bot edit. At least five valid interwikis were removed in that edit, ca series, es series, fr series, no parallel and no parallel. If you wish to reapply the rest of the edit please make sure that these are not deleted. SpinningSpark 19:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit to the page Number prefix appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Popular science

[14] The interwiki to nl: should not have been removed. —Ruud 13:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bot changed good iw

The lb link here was incorrectly changed: [15]. All those articles are about a municipality (Gemeng in lb), not only a village. It's simply wrong for your bot to assume articles with the same name are exactly about the same thing, since naming conventions may be different on different wikis. —Bjung (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And your bot should give precedence to iw already existing on en-wiki, not cs-wiki, since that's the common denominator between wikis people count on for reference. Nobody working on lb-wiki will bother/are able/can afford to manually check that the iw links on all wikis, including cs-wiki, are correct. —Bjung (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but half year ago I haven't logs, so I cannot say why. And in en: sometimes are the only wrong links (other languages are good). JAn Dudík (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a more recent one: [16]. Note that in the case of Luxembourgish municipalities, most wikis had the correct link before the change. In general when en:wiki or a few wikis disagree with most other wikis and there's no other way to decide, I think it would be a good idea to make the bot ask for confirmation before proceeding or not do it. Your bot is not the only one doing interwiki work and is not supposed to do it all. Bjung (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary

Your bot removed valid interwiki links to sr and sk Wikipedia: [17]. Was that your intention or only mistake? PANONIAN 15:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is because on cs are two different categories, but it seems they should be merged. JAn Dudík (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, JAn Dudík. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi

Hello, JAn Dudík, what is your nacitionality?

Arthur Chevailier (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Asphalt - bot error

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asphalt&diff=490338991&oldid=490287475

Not sure how your bot works but its edits to Asphalt were in error. Other language wikis may have malformed interwiki links -the issue is due to synonymity with Bitumen, and dual use of term as Asphalt concrete.

The article was correct as of Apr 2012. see Talk:Asphalt#Interwikis.

If this cannot be fixed please exclude this page from the bot process thanks./Oranjblud (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I found 4 groups of articles: Asphalt, Asphalt concrete, de:Bitumen and es:Mezcla asfáltica, which were mixed all together. Can you see other articles and sort it? I will next repair it in other languages. JAn Dudík (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mistletoe

Links removed from this article to other language's articles on the same topic. Bad bot, down boy. hgilbert (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What is difference between Mistletoe and Viscum? Both articles had same links (and one to de Viscum album too). JAn Dudík (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The articles probably should be merged. However, both sets of links are correct, and until the situation is sorted out, both should remain. hgilbert (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot changed "Telescope" link to "Reflecting telescope"

Change from bar:Zuaweziaga to bar:Zuawaziaga (Reflektor)diff seems to be incorrect. Second is a Reflecting telescope sub article, not the main topic article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please check

Could you check on this [18]? The bot has done it two times, apparently. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Because there exist two mixed groups, see log:

======Post-processing [[en:Aleph number]]======
ERROR: Found link to [[en:Aleph number#Aleph-naught]]
    [[ca:Aleph zero]]
    [[cs:Alef 0]]
    [[es:Alef cero]]
    [[fr:Aleph-zéro]]
    [[he:אלף 0]]
    [[sk:Alef 0]]
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:cs
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:es
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:fr
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:ca
==============================
Links to wikipedia:cs
  (1) Found link to [[cs:Funkce alef]] in:
        [[bs:Alef broj]]
        [[ca:Nombre infinit]]
        [[de:Aleph-Funktion]]
        [[en:Aleph number]]
        [[eo:Alef-nombro]]
        [[es:Alef dos]]
        [[fr:Aleph (nombre)]]
        [[hr:Alef broj]]
        [[ko:알레프 수]]
        [[mk:Алеф-број]]
        [[nl:Alef-getal]]
        [[pl:Skala alefów]]
        [[pt:Aleph (matemática)]]
        [[sl:Število alef]]
        [[sr:Алеф број]]
        [[sv:Aleftal]]
        [[th:จำนวนอะเลฟ]]
        [[zh:艾禮富數]]
  (2) Found link to [[cs:Alef 0]] in:
        [[ca:Aleph zero]]
        [[es:Alef cero]]
        [[fr:Aleph-zéro]]
        [[he:אלף 0]]
        [[sk:Alef 0]]

JAn Dudík (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where the log is posted to consult it in general. I can see now that there are two groups. I am going to try to fix this by splitting the two groups. Please make sure the bot skips this for a while, so that I can do the updates. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have split the two groups now. The articles about aleph 0 in particular should match with en:Aleph zero. The ones on aleph numbers in general should match with en:aleph number. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that although all the links are correct, the latest version of pywikipedia does not handle interwikis to redircts correctly: [19]. There is nothing I can do about that, you'll have to contact the devs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Dubious interwiki changes

You/your bot has been making a few strange interwiki changes:

1. [20] Perfectly valid interwiki link.
   • But marked as disambiguation, and english one is not.
2. [21] Also seems quite reasonable.
   • But marked as disambiguation, and english one is not.
3. [22] Removing de: is a bit dubious, arguably the articles there is about both Swarm intelligence and Collective intelligence. Why add pl: as that one links back to Collective intelligence, not Swarm intelligence?
   • Interwiki should be 1:1, so I must select one of possibilities, when two groups are mixed. And pl: have more backlinks to Collective than swarm.
4. [23] Both links to nl: are appropriate (and of two the one you remove was the most appropriate).
   • Because of 1:1, is not possible have two links to one language (and Wikidata will not allow it)
5. [24] and [25]. These interwikis have a somewhat complicated history (see the talk page and history). They shouldn't be edit with a summary indicating they have been automatically changes by a bot, but with an explanation of why they have been changed (I assume you did manual disambiguation here.)
   • I run Computer science wit ignoring en:computing. Than I run the second article with ignoring all links, which are in the first one.
6. [26] and [27] The article on de: is about both the Integral and Integral calculus. Also note that the latter is a redirect to the first on en:.
   • 1:1, Its problematic. And with your revert you removed good links and repaired redirects too.

—Ruud 16:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Give me better versions (1:1), and I'l lrepair it. JAn Dudík (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't find your response very satisfactory. Could you point me to the policies that supposedly state all interwiki links should be 1:1 and cannot between an article and a non-article? —Ruud 18:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont't know policy, but I know, how interwiki bot works. And the feature to not link non/disambiguations is part of the framework. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that FAQ only states the bot will ignore interwiki links between regular and disambiguation pages. I.e., the bot won't automatically remove such links and it it certainly doesn't claim one should do so manually? What about the 1:1 links? —Ruud 16:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, in my opinion you shouldn't be making such potentially controversial changes under an account with a bot-flag. This reduced the amount of oversight on your edits, while this does seem to be sorely needed. —Ruud 17:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Normally bot skips conflicted pages, but I try to solve these problems. And then I must sometimes remove some links, bot can skip it in autonomous mode, but not when solving in assisted mode.

Running without flag would be possible if I know which pages are conflicted, but I go alphabetically and some pages are conflicted, some not. Its like if I want you have two accounts - one for editing pages about people and second for editing other pages - absurd, isn't?JAn Dudík (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a false analogy. I'm not insisting you use two account, but suggesting you shouldn't be making some of these changes with an account using a bot-flag (so yes, in practice that would mean either using two accounts or dropping the bot-flag from this account.) But you're still dodging the questions. Will you be continuing to remove interwiki links between regular and disambiguation pages and links you don't consider to be "1:1". I'm not seeing how this supported by policy or community practice. —Ruud 19:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

nl:Joint Photographic Experts Group

• What happened here [28] [29] [30]? —Ruud 16:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As usualy - there are two mixed groups, see log. Is nl version correct now or not?

======Post-processing [[nl:Joint Photographic Experts Group]]======
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:ja
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:ru
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:en
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:ca
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:fr
ERROR: Found more than one link for wikipedia:de
==============================
Links to wikipedia:ja
  (1) Found link to [[ja:JPEG]] in:
        [[az:JPEG]]
        [[bg:JPEG]]
        [[ca:JPEG]]
        [[cs:JPEG]]
        [[da:JPEG]]
        [[de:JPEG]]
        [[el:JPEG]]
        [[en:JPEG]]
        [[eo:JPEG]]
        [[es:Joint Photographic Experts Group]]
        [[eu:JPEG]]
        [[fa:جی‌پی‌ئی‌جی]]
        [[fi:JPEG]]
        [[fr:JPEG]]
        [[gl:JPEG]]
        [[he:JPEG]]
        [[hr:JPEG]]
        [[hu:JPEG]]
        [[id:JPEG]]
        [[ka:JPEG]]
        [[km:JPEG]]
        [[ko:JPEG]]
        [[lt:JPEG]]
        [[lv:JPEG]]
        [[ml:ജെ.പി.ഇ.ജി.]]
        [[nl:Joint Photographic Experts Group]]
        [[no:JPEG]]
        [[pam:JPEG]]
        [[pl:JPEG]]
        [[ro:JPEG]]
        [[ru:JPEG]]
        [[sk:JPEG]]
        [[sl:JPEG]]
        [[sv:JPEG]]
        [[th:JPEG]]
        [[tr:JPEG]]
        [[uk:JPEG]]
        [[vi:JPEG]]
        [[yo:JPEG]]
        [[zh:JPEG]]
  (2) Found link to [[ja:Joint Photographic Experts Group]] in:
        [[ar:جيه بيه إيه جي]]
        [[ca:Joint Photographic Experts Group]]
        [[de:Joint Photographic Experts Group]]
        [[en:Joint Photographic Experts Group]]
        [[fr:Joint Photographic Experts Group]]
        [[it:Joint Photographic Experts Group]]
        [[pt:Joint Photographic Experts Group]]
        [[ru:Объединённая группа экспертов по фотографии]]
        [[ur:مشترکہ گروہ برائے عکسیہ ماہران]]

JAn Dudík (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should link to the file format, not the organization. But that doens't really answer the question how these kind of edits keep happening: do you check the articles before "correcting" the links? —Ruud 19:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

How can I recognize it only from name of article? I see in bot console only names and backlinks. Usually its enough, but sometimes it might be problem, like in this case. JAn Dudík (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Shrimp and Caridea

You bot is making some confused additions and deletions on Shrimp and Caridea. For example, it mistakenly deleted ro:Crevete from Shrimp, and then mistakenly added the same link to Caridea. It also mistakenly added nrm:Chèrvette, pt:Camarão, ro:Crevetă, zh:虾 to Caridea when they should have been added to Shrimp. What criteria is the bot using for articles such as these? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

For cs:krevety bot found two links, and shrimp have only few other links, and caridea have more, mainly same, links. So I only repaired srimp->caridea everywhere and removed from shrimp ro: redirect to ro:Crevetă, which had backlinks to all other languages. JAn Dudík (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing incorrect {{Commons category}}

Hi Jan, you're doing a good job, but you could make it better. Take Category:15th-century sculptures. It linked to Commons:Category:15th century sculptures. This was deleted, but the name of the new category is in the deletion log entry so you can use that to update the link. This function is already in commonscat.py in Pywikipedia. Multichill (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JAn Dudík. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Bad substitution

have any idea how may of these bad edits you made? the size=tiny is not the category name. Frietjes (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes: My bot was replacing this in 17 cases, from which 1 was incorrect (undocumented template parameter). JAn Dudík (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

thank you, I realized after posting here that the total number of substitutions was limited. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, April 2017

Bots Newsletter, April 2017

Greetings! The BAG Newsletter is now the Bots Newsletter, per discussion. As such, we've subscribed all bot operators to the newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list. Highlights for this newsletter include: Arbcom Magioladitis ARBCOM case has closed. The remedies of the case include: Community encouraged to review common fixes Community encouraged to review policy on cosmetic edits Developers encouraged to improve AWB interface Bot approvals group encouraged to carefully review BRFA scope Reminders/Restrictions specific to Magioladitis BRFAs We currently have 27 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing! Discussions There are multiple ongoing discussions surrounding bot-related matters. In particular: RFC on COSMETICBOT Efforts at WP:CHECKWIKI to identify cosmetic fixes Requested move for the Bot Owners' Noticeboard A phabricator ticket T162685 has been made to have a "bots" tag, so issues related to bot frameworks can be tracked New things Several new things are around: A BAG Guide has been created (WP:BAGG, discussion). Users now have the option to hide AWB from their watchlists via a script (WP:HIDEAWB, discussion) The guidance on how to deal with bot issues has been overhauled (WP:BOTISSUE, discussion) The bot policy has been updated to clarify that bot operators are required to register accounts. (WP:BOTACCOUNT, discussion) Wikimania Wikimania 2017 is happening in Montreal, during 9–13 August. If you plan to attend, or give a talk, let us know! Thank you! edited by:Headbomb 11:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC) (You can unsubscribe from future newsletters by removing your name from this list.)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JAn Dudík. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JAn Dudík. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

JAn Dudík (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

IP 178.255.168.17 is NAT of my provider JAn Dudík (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I can't unblock you because your account isn't directly blocked, so you could edit from another IP, and getting the block on the IP removed isn't likely to happen. What you can do instead is go to WP:IPECPROXY and follow those instructions to request IP block exemption. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2023 (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.

@Daniel Case: I cannot edit because of autoblock #20765642. I have the IP of my provider and cannot change it. JAn Dudík (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: On other computer, same provider starnet.cz , IP 178.255.168.1 also blocked, autoblock #20714315. No response from checkusers yet. Very good. I understand why so many people are complaining to en.wiki byrocracy. :-( JAn Dudík (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I would grant you IPBE myself (we do have the authority to do that) but because some admins were too generous/trusting with it in the past, we are now strongly encouraged to advise people to do it through the email list. And lately that list has had to field a lot of these requests because a) we've gotten better at detecting proxies and b) the growth of Apple Private Relay and other such CDN services which routinely route traffic through open proxies.

There is supposed to be a session at Wikimania next week on the effect of these blocks in the Global South. Or something like that. I plan to attend. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Upcoming expiry of your ipblock-exempt right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 16:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Test reply 1 JAn Dudík (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Test reply 2 JAn Dudík (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)