Please do not add "szl" interwiki links, they doesn't work. - Darwinek (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have seen that issue, wiki has been created, PyWikipedia contains code; but links do not work. --- Sorry, Numbo3 (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links do work now. --- Best regards, Numbo3 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that Numbo3-bot just made a mistake: A user added [1] the interwiki TL link, and about 12 hours later the bot added the same link again [2] . Maybe you want to check what went wrong... Rror (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I tried to reproduce this, but it didn't happen again. --- Best regards, Numbo3 (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot has been blocked for its recent edits. The were entirely inappropriate. The bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." Your bot was "correcting" links in a horrible fashion. If it is going to be editing archives and other pages, it should at least use an interwiki prefix like tools: so that the links won't break again in the future. I have no intention of unblocking this bot until I see a full explanation of why you thought it was appropriate for an interwiki bot to be making the edits this bot was making and why you didn't seek approval (where I would have told you to use tools: and to avoid page archives). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing this changes on all wikis, as http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/ is a dead domain! It has been replaced by http://toolserver.org/ instead. If it's that strict with it ("Pure interwiki bot."), I promise to not do any other changes but interwiki links anymore. Nevertheless, the changes were not inappropriate; they fixed broken URLs; thus please unblock. --- Best regards, Numbo3 (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.s.: But how to include URL parameters with tools: (? and & get URL escaped then ;-)? --Numbo3 (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were editing archives and other pages that are explicitly not supposed to be edited by bots. And if, tomorrow, toolserver.org stops working, all of the link fixes you've made will break again. If you instead use [[tools:~veinor/cgi-bin/VeinorBot.cgi|here]], for example, it won't break (as badly) if the URL changes in the future. Either way, a pure interwiki bot shouldn't be doing non-interwiki work. Your bot was approved for only interwiki changes. If you would like to make this type of edit, please file another bot request. I'll unblock your bot in a moment. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot has been blocked again for performing tasks it is not authorised to do. If you can demonstrate that you got approval from BAG to run the bot to edit Template:Popular articles, please do. Just notifying you, thought it would be courteous since I noticed the edits were highly suspect. Regards, — neuro^(talk) 19:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I have blocked your bot again for making inappropriate edits, the bot was approved as a "Pure interwiki bot." However, the bot has been editing Template:Popular articles and it is not approved to do so. Therefore, the bot will remain blocked until you explain the reason for this and seek approval from the BAG if you wish for your bot to continue its edits to Template:Popular articles. The Helpful One 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This block seems entirely out of line and I'm strongly inclined to immediately unblock. If there's paperwork that needs to be filed, a warning (or even a nice note) is far more appropriate than an indefinite block. I see no evidence that this bot was causing any kind of harm to the project. This seems like any entirely punitive block. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked, but I think you should seek approval from BAG to make the edits to the template. The Helpful One 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, but MZMcBride is right; there is no harm. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Numbo3-bot (although bureaucracy is really a pain for me, note that my bot/services are working on a lot of wikis (partially with other name(s)); altogether, bureaucracy eats a huge amount of time then; just doing something is much more efficient ;-) --- sorry again, Numbo3 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't and interwikis to this article. There apparently is no such article in other wikis. (There are about 4 bots that do this over and over and over.) kwami (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably some article(s) on other wiki(s) are incorrectly poiting to List of Latin digraphs. This can be fixed manually (only). --- Kind regards, Numbo3 (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULAR transcludes Template:Popular articles in a way that generates two "more" items that have different meanings: a collapsible frame and also a "» more" link. The former contains the list extended beyond the first 15, the latter links to the template page itself (same as the "v" link in the collapse-frame title-bar). That's pretty confusing UI! I think "» more" is only needed if the collapse-frame is not displayed. It should be controlled by the same #if logic as the collapse-frame (display one or the other) rather than controlled by <includeonly>. Does the bot edit the items in the template-page list or does it just upload the whole template page? That is, if I edit the template to try to improve the links, will the bot just overwrite my work? DMacks (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the template to avoid duplicate "more" links, and tested its display in various direct and transclusion settings...seems to do what I wanted. Let's see how bot handles updating it... DMacks (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked it:( DMacks (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DMacks, the "» more" is intended for all circumstances, e.g. user showing only the top 5 on their user page. Shall I just call it "» source" e.g. instead of "» more"? -- Kind regards, Numbo3 (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Please check out the Dortmund Airport article. This bot replaced a valid language link instead of appending it. I have reverted this edit as I cannot block your bot. Regards TINYMARK 12:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is OK with this edit, "mk" has just been moved upwards and "vi" been placed there where "mk" had been ;-) --- Kind regards, Numbo3 (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed The Beatles article was commented out from Template:Popular articles.[3] I've been wondering what's going on with the hit numbers for that article for a while now. Do you have any more info? Thank you. Siawase (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had to comment out this entry, as the numbers for The Beatles have been ridiculous high for too long; they are just inaccurate; +/-5000 hits steadily, 24 hours, every day. I consider that being plain traffic spam. The reason is most probably an automated process requesting the article over and over again, without the article actually being read, compare http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/The_Beatles – initially I thought there might be any music portal or music software suddenly linking or embedding the Wikipedia content, but I do not believe in that anymore. That high numbers and then no other music related articles following close (like Madonna or Michael Jackson or Eminem), as well as mysterious music spam there forced me to hide that entry. As if there would be nothing more important and more interesting than The Beatles, constantly all the time; that gave it the rest! ;-) I know The Beatles are popular, but not that popular :-D --- Best regards, Numbo3 (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply! I think you're correct in your assessment. I checked google trends and there are no spikes in the beatles searches there corresponding to the traffic here, and comparing to other artists it makes no sense either.[4][5] It seems like a good idea to hide it to limit the value of the spamming. It's too bad someone decided to spam it too, since now any legitimate traffic spikes will be unnoticable with the already padded numbers, whether the article is hidden at popular articles or not. Siawase (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is truly sad, yes. But the numbers are still logged with this template, although hidden; but as long as the traffic is being spoofed, the numbers for The Beatles are useless, unfortunately. And unfortunately I do not have any access to the Squid server logs to set up an IP filter or something... --- Kind regards, Numbo3 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, the summary text from your bot mentions "robot Adding: mwl:Modelo:Partido político, pt:Predefinição:Info/Partido Político", but it neglects why it deleted 16 others. I can see a multiple issues here. +mt 03:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why PyWikipedia (the used framework for most interwiki bots) did this (especially in regard to the wrong summary)); maybe the other wikis didn't link back or respectively the iw links outside were conflicting in some way (/doc and ../). But my bot is not and will not be touching any template for interwiki linking anymore, anyway (was only for minutes; checked quickly once, didn't see that the summary was misleading too). PyWikipedia has too many serious bugs when it comes to the template namespace. --- Sorry for that, Numbo3 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Norway article in this edit, your bot added another language, but corrupted the got: reference. I've fixed it in this edit. You should make sure your bot works before you set it loose on Wikipedia. DarkPhoenix (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teh bot seems to have stopped updating Template:Popular articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heya.

Your robot borked a bunch of Unicode characters in this edit, back in November. Looks like it changed mathematical Fraktur characters in the range U+1D500 to Korean in the range U+D500.

This edit wasn't corrected until now. Boy, I wonder what else it messed up over the months... —Michael Z. 2009-12-30 18:29 z

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]