User talk:Butlerblog
 | Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:
|
Category:Pages using start date with invalid values
[edit]Hey, any chance your bot can go over Category:Pages using start date with invalid values and fix any of the easy one it can to the standard YYYY-MM-DD (in numbers)? Gonnym (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: Yes - I think I can do that. Sorry I have just not been able to get the bot updated for some of the changes over the past 6-9 months (or has it been longer). It has mostly been an issue of available time as I've been busy off-wiki. I'd like to get it back to fully automatic, but I'm not sure when I'll be able to do that. But I will get this category looked at as soon as I can. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, no pressure. If you need anything from me, let me know. Gonnym (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Gonnym I did one full pass with the film date bot and that cleared out some. Then I made a couple of adjustments to that bot so it would check film date, start date, and end date. That seems to be catching a lot more. So far, I've cleared about 1000 or so from the category, but it will be more once I finish up that second run with the adjusted bot. Unfortunately, I can't run it unattended as there are some false positives that pop up, so I've got to keep an eye on it as it goes. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've seen the amount go down, good job! Gonnym (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Gonnym I did one full pass with the film date bot and that cleared out some. Then I made a couple of adjustments to that bot so it would check film date, start date, and end date. That seems to be catching a lot more. So far, I've cleared about 1000 or so from the category, but it will be more once I finish up that second run with the adjusted bot. Unfortunately, I can't run it unattended as there are some false positives that pop up, so I've got to keep an eye on it as it goes. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, no pressure. If you need anything from me, let me know. Gonnym (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for making these edits. Please adjust your script so that it doesn't convert "November 1961" to "11 1961". – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah... those "Redirects are cheap" also messed up some of my regexes a few days ago. I've converted some of the low count ones before I continued as it's impossible* to work around them. Gonnym (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- That edit actually should have been skipped - and since I'm running this bot observed, I should have noticed that before letting it do the change... sorry. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Chuck Baldwin
[edit]On Chuck Baldwin: "Undid revision 1277995993 by Matheus Daisy (talk) - It's only found in the source you added, which is a primary source that is contested. Seek consensus via discussion on the article's talk page before using this. The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus *before* re-adding your contested addition".
What I included is absolutely not contested by anyone (and see, the source is his own website!). It was written that he was a dispensationalist by 2010. I did not deny it, but only said that he is no more. I really don't know why would I need a consensus about he not being more a dispensationalism, since he is now literally one of the leading spokespeople against dispensationalism in America: he writes articles against it almost everyday!... Matheus Daisy (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Matheus Daisy This needs to be discussed on the article's talk page - that's where you discuss content-focused issues. User talk pages are for user-specific discussions (which this is not).
- I'll note here, however, that it appears you need to probably review WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, understanding the difference, that secondary sources are preferred, and when it's appropriate to use a primary source (which in this case the specific source provided is WP:PROMOTIONAL - linking to a store page - so it's not appropriate here).
- You can ask me a question here about sourcing in general, but if you've got discussion specifically related to the article in question, then it should be done on that article's talk page. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Bot errors
[edit]These two edits 1 & 2 are problematic as they remove the last half of the citations, leaving them broken and unclosed. I've addressed both, but your bot is not doing something right in these "bullet after citation" scenarios. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to mention it. Looks like what happened was that it was picking up the
|website=in the ref inside the {{Infobox television}} thinking that it was a parameter in the infobox itself. The bot usually looks to remove those as it is a deprecated parameter for the infobox - but it should ignore what's in the ref cite (a template within a template). That had been previously addressed in an earlier version of the bot, but it seems that some recent changes require it to be reviewed again, so that param will be ignored for now until it can be adjusted to return a zero error rate. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)- Looks like someone is on the case, but just wanted to report that I've seen the same issue (fixed now) at Red Oaks, Relatos macabrones, and The Ratties. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Bot put "Unaired" inside Template:Start date
[edit]The bot is adding leading zeroes to dates and putting "Unaired" inside {{Start date}}. The latter is a problem, and the former is not needed. Example edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95 Originally, having "unaired" within the {{Start date}} template was necessary for {{Episode list}} to not be listed as a formatting error for
|OriginalAirDate=. I am aware that's a recent change and I have adjusted all of the bot tasks to account for that. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)- Thanks for the quick response. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- No problem! Thanks for pointing it out. I have been refining the bot tasks to account for changes that have been implemented over the past year. It used to run daily on several TV maintenance categories. I'm hoping to get it back to be able to do that. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)