Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
Dear Naypta, I Am Depressed & Need Your Attention On This Issue.
We've continously screamed black lives matter in the last couple of days, but I feel thats not true because Wikipedia has deleted the official Wikipedia page of an African Celebrity and that's unfair.
I wish to reinstate her Wikipedia Account and I don't know how to go about it. It's unfair she struggled to attain her level of fame in Africa only to be unfairly maltreated and disregarded on this Encyclopedia.
Every successful person deserves a page on Wikipedia. How can I restore hers. Anonymousbeauty2018 (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Anonymousbeauty2018: Hello, what's the title of the page that you are talking about? If it was deleted following a deletion discussion, you may wish to look at the discussion and examine the reasons why the community decided to delete it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Dear Naypta, Thank you so much for your prompt reply, I really appreciate.
The page I am talking about belongs to TACHA also known as NATACHA AKIDE.
She is currently Africa's Biggest Influencer. I usually edited her Wikipedia page but discovered it had been unfairly deleted while I was off the Wikipedia sphere due to health issues.
I don't know if it was deleted following a deletion discussion, I will be glad if you help me check, so I can take a look at the reasons why the community decided to delete it.
Anonymousbeauty2018 (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Anonymousbeauty2018: The deletion discussion for the article is here. I wasn't a part of the discussion, so don't really know the context of it, but you can read through the reasons why the article was deleted there. Hope that's helpful! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I have gone through the discussion and all I saw is propagandist contributions from all corners against the celebrity in order to have her page deleted.
How do I reinstate her page or at least start a decent discussion on why her page should be reinstated.
I don't really understand the grounds on which her page was deleted because all the majority of the contributions in the delete discussion were absolutely false.
Tacha is a registered brand in Africa and her official Wikipedia page should be available to all Africans seeking valid informations about her on Wikipedia.
Thank you. Anonymousbeauty2018 (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Anonymousbeauty2018: None of the comments there in favour of deletion are
propagandist
as far as I can tell. It sounds like the person you're discussing might not meet the English Wikipedia's verifiability and notability standards. If you're able to find sufficient independent reliable sources, you can recreate the article - but if the article is just identical to the one that was there beforehand, it will be deleted again. It needs to fit those criteria before it can be on Wikipedia.Being aregistered brand
is a great thing, for sure, but it doesn't fit into the notability criteria for Wikipedia. Just like not all companies have a Wikipedia article, not all people do - I certainly don't! It's not the end of the world if there isn't an article - but if you can find sufficient independent, reliable sources that substantially comment on Akide, then an article on her would be welcome. I hope that helps clear things up a bit! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Yapperbot COVID data
Hello, and thanks for all the good bot-herding. {{COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita}} links to dab COVID-19 pandemic in China, which I think should be COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. I've not fixed it as I'm not sure exactly what "China" means here, and User:Yapperbot/COVIDdata looks like the sort of automatically generated text I shouldn't mess with. I hope you can make any necessary fixes. Thanks, Certes (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Certes: Hey, thanks for letting me know! I've updated the template for the bot's table in this diff, and I'm scheduling a bot run now to update the table itself. Cheers :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
For boldly ignoring all rules in a contentious debate on AfD and closing it per WP:AVALANCHE even if it may not have fit the letter of the law. Putting yourself at risk of incivility/WP:POINTyness by editors angry at a contentious close, especially an early one, and especially as a non-admin, is worth recognizing and commending when it happens. Thank you! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
- @Psiĥedelisto: Sentiment appreciated, thank you! I'm not sure I'd describe it as all that contentious - indeed, there seemed to be pretty broad agreement - and NACs for WP:SNOW closures aren't disallowed by any policy I'm aware of in the first instance, but nonetheless Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Naypta: It wasn't all that contentious among experienced editors, especially not after the Trump tweets, but it was still brave to risk the wrath of the WP:CANVASSers! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
You inspired me to do a non-admin closure of my own: 8 minutes and 46 seconds. My first Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Persistent damaging edits
Hi Naypta!
I hope this is the right avenue to contact you. With your help (and others), the Simon Tian page was made to be neutral and informative. Unfortunately, as of May 31st, the user Craftsman2116 has undone much of our work, has broken the three-revert rule, and is putting the page back to exactly the way it was previously. The user is removing references to criticism and adding promotional links/facts back in (including adding a net worth with no reference), as well as ruining the quality of the sources within the article (a tweet referenced in the article now directs to the main page of the subject's Twitter account). It is abundantly clear that this user has a conflict of interest, despite his claims otherwise, and I don't know what to do at this point. LiesForgotten (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- @LiesForgotten: Hi, thanks for raising this with me. I've brought the situation up for discussion at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard - you may wish to add some more diffs to the evidence I've presented there if you feel like it. Cheers, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Athens metro area
Hello Athens metropolitan area cover all the the mainland attica officially, please don't reverse right edits--2A02:587:4400:2DD0:18D4:B48F:9595:D262 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- @2A02:587:4400:2DD0:18D4:B48F:9595:D262: Hello! I accidentally reverted one of your edits whilst monitoring vandalism on Wikipedia. I immediately corrected my mistake and reinstated the edit, but I apologise all the same - it was a mistake. Cheers, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
ok, sorry. I add correct info which just missing in this articles.--2A02:587:4400:2DD0:18D4:B48F:9595:D262 (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- No need to apologise, the mistake was mine! Have fun editing, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Removal of edits on UKTV
Why would you remove the edits. They are completely accurate.
UKTV decided to remove an episode of Faulty Towers to accomodate demands from the BLM movement. The BLM movement was founded a few years ago and money raised filters through a Democratic Party owned organisation. The BLM themselves refer to themselves as being far-left.
The fact you have removed the comments shows that you are impartial as you have retained all information that shows UKTV in good light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseekoftruth (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Theseekoftruth: Hello! I appreciate your endorsement of my impartiality, but I fear you may have meant much the opposite. Nonetheless, I left a message on your talk page explaining why I reverted your edit. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, and we rely on reliable sources for our information. Original research is not permitted, so claiming a channel is "biased" is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, especially when it is not sourced. Even if it were sourced, it would not belong in the lead of the article. I hope that's helpful, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Neutral point of view?
To Whom it may concern,
I recently edited the page "Hardcore Hip Hop" and my changes were reverted. I noticed that in your response to another author's realization of their changes being reverted, you said "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." This is the reason why I made the edit, as the article as presented was not neutral. Please provide evidence that the content of the article prior to my edits was neutral, otherwise you have no grounds for refusing my edit. Additionally, please produce proof of your expertise in music genres, otherwise you have no grounds for refuting my expertise.
Sincerely, Hip Hop Expert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa: Hello. You removed a significant amount of content from the article with no explanation as to why, changing its meaning substantially with no reliable sources. YouTube is not a reliable source, and for changes of the magnitude of the one you were trying to make, you should seek consensus on the talk page before making them again. Thank you! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa: Consider that you, nor anyone else that would engage with me on the "talk page," is exposed enough socially to understand such matters. Additionally, consider yourself a protector of petrified opinion. | 11:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @2600:1700:5b80:1bc0:38b8:3d7f:d405:4afa: You're entitled to be of that opinion, although I'd appreciate a bit more civility in the way you express it. If you have any further questions pertinent to editing Wikipedia in a way that's compliant with our policies, I'm happy to help you out! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Mau Mau
Hi Naypta. What was wrong with my edit? I thought it made perfect sense. --Colony! Colony! Colony! (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Colony! Colony! Colony!: Hello, I left a message on your talk page explaining what was wrong. Your edits were not written from a neutral point of view, the standard we adhere to on Wikipedia. Thank you, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Biography
Sir - Concerning BILL OSTER - Was wondering why you rejected all which was properly / correctly / accurately entered Friday which was all 100 % true yet you now show exactly same but have not allowed the corrections as entered, such as name of grandson with name of ' ted ' which s/b ' Ted ' - ??? - Will not correct anything on this entry ever again although you all need to smarten up in this regard - Therefore, an explanation would be appreciated unless you choose to do as most others have when questioned and just disappear - By the way, just so you are aware as so many of you Wikipedia so-called ' editors ' appear to know nothing about baseball or sorts in general, I personally knew this gentleman and from the last entry the other day with corrections to HECTOR TORRES, as well, who played with the Toronto Blue Jays when I was involved with that team - You people need to be a little smarter in these things as some people do know a little more than most of you appear to - Thank you very much - 69.158.86.174 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
- @69.158.86.174: Hello, myself and other users have explained to you what was wrong on your talk page. Wikipedia requires all information to have a reliable source attached, especially when it's about a living or recently deceased person. Claiming that someone has died without a source asserting it to be true isn't allowed. If you can find a reliable source to assert that claim, that's fine, you can readd your edit with that source cited. You may personally know him, but I'm afraid your personal experience isn't a sufficiently encyclopedic or verifiable reference. Thanks, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
stop fiddling
You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE 27.32.179.175 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Every time I edit, you undo it! Most frustrating, please stop! :(
- @27.32.179.175: Hello, additions to Wikipedia are required to be verifiable in reliable sources. Your additions looked to me like promotion without a reliable source, so I removed them. If there is coverage supporting your edits in independent, reliable sources, please cite these sources in your edits. Thank you! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
BILL OSTER - CONTINUED -
Sir - As it stands your very poor response is way beyond totally unacceptable - You cannot supply a reference / source if there is nothing known to that point other than a person has died, has been acknowledged to have died, so then the information is entered with the hope some reference / source will then follow shortly afterward or within a number of days, which it usually has when others chime in but the people who did entered no reference either ( ??? ) - You ' editing ' people have really screwed up Wikipedia in more recent years since 2005 as back when it all started things could be entered very smoothly / easily without jumping through all of these waste of time and beyond unnecessary hoops - For the most part people do not know where to go for a reference / source in most instances yet have something which they feel needs to be entered / should be entered and ASAP - However, once again you unknowing types have made it much too tough to accomplish even the basic minimal - Lastly, how can you, being in England, even know anything about baseball at all ( ??? ), as most of you cannot even report cricket properly, having played for Canada Juniors over 50 years ago and faced some of the top cricket players of the 1960s at that time, to be able to tell people what to say / not say ( ??? ) - Please do think about some of this then try to smarten up just a little as there are people out here who know a great deal more on topics you all do not and never will - As you might expect at this point, Mr. Oster's family are not at all pleased !!! - Lastly, there is no need for any of you ' editors ' to ever enter any kind of waste of time responses as it will not be appreciated at this point. Thank You.69.158.86.174 (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hello again. Please consult Wikipedia's policy on civility. If you're willing to be civil and to have a discussion, I'm happy to help you; otherwise, I'm not. Thank you. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_180#Proposal:_Allow_wikilinks_and_other_wikimarkup_from_tooltip_text_to_be_displayed_on_WP_image_pages has been archived. Did anyone do anything to fix the visual editor captions? If not, should I write a new proposal?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Epiphyllumlover: Hey! I'm not aware that any decision was taken from that thread, no. It might be a good idea to raise it again if it's still something you're interested in :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 07:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
a sack of potatos for you!
One potato from every person YapperBot gave a dozen messages! :) —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 08:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Yapperbot is frisky this morning
I've had eight requests for comment already this morning - is Yapperbot feeling alright? GirthSummit (blether) 08:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)@Girth Summit: see this ANI thread for the mechanics. Incidentally, you're "only" lined up for 20 alerts a month, so it might soon be over for you 😉 ——Serial # 09:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I posted this Wikipedia_talk:Feedback_request_service#Bot_enabled_--_concerns before seeing the this ANI thread. I will check that out. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: thanks for the link - got it, one off thing, no big deal from my perspective. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 09:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Frequency functionality continued
Discussion continued from WP:ANI (and other locations as noted at User_talk:Yapperbot#Current_discussions). Mathglot (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Mathglot: Thanks for opening up this continued discussion.
Can you commit to looking into an adjustment to the code so that a cold start after some time offline won't repeat this?
I wrote my answer to whether or not bot should be turned off during an edit-conflict. I'm willing to commit to looking at the code, but I expect it will take a few days before I have any sense of how it works, given my experience with programming/coding does not include wiki-bot coding. I can't promise I will have the time and patience to sufficiently understand it to verify that this wouldn't happen again, but I will give it a shot. I promise that within the week I will at least get started and will put in at least an hour to looking at it and possibly asking the coder or other bot-coders key questions about how it or certain bot-commands work.- If there is no documentation, I might start (or add to) it.
- That's it for this subject for tonight for me... --David Tornheim (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim and Mathglot: I won't comment on where this discussion should be - as mentioned previously, I'm more than happy to go wherever it takes me!This is as far as I can tell the first time that the bot being "turned off" during an edit conflict has been mentioned. What do you envisage that would do? Also, doesn't that have the potential to create quite serious issues with frequently-used talk pages? (It may also not be possible in the current implementation, as Yapperbot is coded deliberately to use MediaWiki's "New section" functionality to avoid ever having edit conflicts.)The idea of rate limiting is clearly one that's possible, though. In theory, this issue shouldn't ever reoccur anyway, but in the event that it did, it might be good to have rate limits involved. I already have edit limiting code from the bot trial, which is hooked into the FRS bot, so changing that to have a limit on the number of messages sent to a single user per run (the bot currently runs on Toolforge every hour) would definitely be possible if people think that's a good idea. One alternative would be simply to add another parameter to {{Frs user}} that allows users to customise a daily limit - perhaps with a default of 3, then allowing users to set any number there, or 0 for no limit.Whatever changes are made, I want to make sure that everyone is happy with them - so please let me know your thoughts! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- On further reflection, I think there are two good options going forward (although there may well be other ones that I've not considered - I welcome additional suggestions!):
-
- Add a per-week limit to {{Frs user}}. I previously said per day limit, but in the vast majority of cases (i.e. pretty much any apart from this edge case of edge cases) that wouldn't be helpful. A week limit would accomplish much the same thing, just with far more utility in normal times, too.
- Build the code of the bot to ship multiple notifications to a user in one template. This has advantages and disadvantages: whilst it'd mean less talk page spam in this edge case, it would also mean that the notification might potentially be less clear, as the heading would have to be just "feedback requested" rather than a category (as they might contain multiple categories). It'd also mean the bot would be less easy to debug if there were issues to come up: at the moment, because each message is a product of a single RfC, it's easy to track back issues if they occur and fix them, which would be more problematic without that clear connection.
- Let me know your thoughts Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hiya - Allie from IRC here. I would advise putting a hard limit on how many times Yapperbot can write to a specific user's talkpage in a one-hour period, and I would suggest that limit is once - all the FRS notifications for a day should really be delivered in a single edit anyway. I would also suggest implementing a proper rate-limit which takes the per-month limit and uses that to calculate a "cooling-off" period between notifications to a user. For instance, I think I'm set at 30 notifications per month, so a 24 hour cooling-off period would be appropriate, but someone who is set at one notification per month should recieve a notification (on average) every 30 days, instead of just on the first of each calendar month. I'm a bit concerned you're referring to this as an 'edge case' - in my opinion, scheduling is core bot functionality. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 12:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Alfie: Hi Allie. This is an edge case, because it is by no means normal for there to be this many "new" RfCs to process. If you take a look at the history of the pages Legobot transcludes RfCs onto - for instance, take the Biographies category - you can see that, on a daily basis, there's normally one, maybe two, RfCs per category. Ninety-nine to process at once is, in every sense of the word, a rarity.That being said, of course, it being a rarity and an edge case does not mean that it's not something that would be useful to address. A cooling-off period, as you refer to it, is of course possible to implement, but I'm not sure it's really all that necessary - if you look at the history of the way that Legobot previously did this, this was never an issue, and I suspect had I just not sent any notifications of the ongoing RfCs and only started sending messages regarding new ones, it wouldn't have ever come up as an issue either. Bundling FRS notifications in a run is definitely possible, although there's nothing to guarantee that a further run that same day wouldn't pick up a new RfC or GA nom, which would then send another message. Once again, the thing to bear in mind here is that the vast majority of the time, each run will consist of one RfC, maybe two at a push - nowhere near the number experienced this morning. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hiya - Allie from IRC here. I would advise putting a hard limit on how many times Yapperbot can write to a specific user's talkpage in a one-hour period, and I would suggest that limit is once - all the FRS notifications for a day should really be delivered in a single edit anyway. I would also suggest implementing a proper rate-limit which takes the per-month limit and uses that to calculate a "cooling-off" period between notifications to a user. For instance, I think I'm set at 30 notifications per month, so a 24 hour cooling-off period would be appropriate, but someone who is set at one notification per month should recieve a notification (on average) every 30 days, instead of just on the first of each calendar month. I'm a bit concerned you're referring to this as an 'edge case' - in my opinion, scheduling is core bot functionality. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 12:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- PS: As to documentation, the specific bot code doesn't have explicit documentation, because it's not a library, but all the relevant bits of code are commented. Code for ybtools, which is the shared library used across all of the bot's tasks, is commented in standard Godoc style as it is a library, so its full documentation is available here. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim and Mathglot: I won't comment on where this discussion should be - as mentioned previously, I'm more than happy to go wherever it takes me!This is as far as I can tell the first time that the bot being "turned off" during an edit conflict has been mentioned. What do you envisage that would do? Also, doesn't that have the potential to create quite serious issues with frequently-used talk pages? (It may also not be possible in the current implementation, as Yapperbot is coded deliberately to use MediaWiki's "New section" functionality to avoid ever having edit conflicts.)The idea of rate limiting is clearly one that's possible, though. In theory, this issue shouldn't ever reoccur anyway, but in the event that it did, it might be good to have rate limits involved. I already have edit limiting code from the bot trial, which is hooked into the FRS bot, so changing that to have a limit on the number of messages sent to a single user per run (the bot currently runs on Toolforge every hour) would definitely be possible if people think that's a good idea. One alternative would be simply to add another parameter to {{Frs user}} that allows users to customise a daily limit - perhaps with a default of 3, then allowing users to set any number there, or 0 for no limit.Whatever changes are made, I want to make sure that everyone is happy with them - so please let me know your thoughts! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. shouldn't this discussion be at Wikipedia_talk:Feedback_request_service or User_talk:Yapperbot? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- If you just bundled all the invites into a single section (possibly by detecting whether the last section on a user's talkpage is an existing recent notification, and adding a new notification to it) I think people would be 90% less annoyed. But people are making much too big a deal of this, if indeed it's just a startup phenomenon. EEng 13:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @EEng: That's one of the options I've mentioned above, yeah. I disagree that people are making too big a deal of it, though; it's important. Being a botop means being in a position of trust, by the very nature of running a bot, and I want people to feel that they can put that trust in me. If people feel I've broken that trust, that's a huge issue, so it is important to have these discussions - at least from my perspective. As I said at the ANI thread, bots are here to serve the community, not the other way around, and I want to make sure that mine works the way it's supposed to. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I can send you a whip with which to flagellate yourself. EEng 13:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I very much appreciate your saying that in that tone. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @EEng: That's one of the options I've mentioned above, yeah. I disagree that people are making too big a deal of it, though; it's important. Being a botop means being in a position of trust, by the very nature of running a bot, and I want people to feel that they can put that trust in me. If people feel I've broken that trust, that's a huge issue, so it is important to have these discussions - at least from my perspective. As I said at the ANI thread, bots are here to serve the community, not the other way around, and I want to make sure that mine works the way it's supposed to. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Notices for expired discussions
Aside from the duplicates thing you revert, the bot is also leaving FRS input/participation requests for discussion that are long-since closed, e.g. [1]. This is the only one I've seen, but it's 12 days past the date when it should have gone out. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: That's for a brand new GA nomination, not for the DYK. There are no FRS notifications for DYKs, so that's working as intended. Sorry for the duplicate issue, though - debugging that at the moment, the bot is paused until it's fixed Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. Guess I need coffee and better glasses! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Yapperbot
Is the bot working off a backlog because it is taking over the duties of an earlier bot who died in action or was captured? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: It was - although the previous bot didn't so much die as was incapacitated for the purposes of this task The first run finished this morning, so now it should respond on time with new RfCs and GA noms. Legobot used to run the FRS, but it hadn't been sending notifications for many months, and its botop hadn't been responding to messages about it, so I stepped in to run it instead. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
I heard you had a busy morning. AdamF in MO (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC) |
- Heh, thank you Adamfinmo! Busy is one word for it... all sorted now thankfully Plenty of learning on my part, which is always positive! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)