Archives |
| 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 |
This page has archives. Sections older than14 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III. |
Thie link tomaiden voyage in theList of Liberty ships (A–F) is correct. I'm not sure exactly what has happened, but it appears that a perfectly valid article has been turned into a disambiguation page. Please take this off you list of links to flag up.Mjroots (talk)06:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled why the bot said it found me linking to a disambiguation page. Here is the line it flagged. I don't see a disambiguation page anywhere: "He sometimes takes on comedic parts, for example playing a father who calls in an exorcist priest when his son wants to play rock music instead of studying inLucio Corsi's hit music video 'Volevo essere un duro.'[1]"Can someone help me understand what the bot was flagging?
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you.
The citation template I have used for years to site articles in medical journals in PubMed such as I used forIFI44L which I recently published has not been working all day. When I click on Wikit (going tohttps://citation-template-filling.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi?ddb=&type=pubmed_id&id=25052386&add_param_space=1&add_ref_tag=1&full_journal_title=1) I get an error message "Can't call method "findnodes" on an undefined value at /data/project/citation-template-filling/perl/ActivePerl-5.26/site/lib/WWW/Search/PubMedLite.pm line 117". Can you please help me correct this? Thank you. (talk) 22:41, 1 March February 2025 (UTC).....Yesterday afternoon, the citation template started working.(talk) 4:41, 3 March February 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate this bot so much. Thanks to whoever made it. Helps make articles I edit better!SamuelNelsonGISP (talk)16:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the wording of the bot message for disambiguation notifications can be inaccurate. It states that "you added a link pointing to X", even in cases where the article was simply reverted to an older version that contained the link. In that case, while it was my edit, it wasn't really "me" adding it, and insinuating that can be patronizing and make the bot seem faulty. I would suggest changing to the more passive wording of "a link was added pointing to X", which seems to be all that the bot can actually detect, as it doesn't have the capability to compare to past history and say things like "an older link was restored that is now incorrect".ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)08:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]