User talk:Bearcat - Knowledge

1490:

is, you will still see whichever drafts the bot hasn't gotten around to yet. Maybe it would've handled them shortly after you got there, making your effort unnecessary. Or, maybe your efforts are vital and the bot simply cannot handle that level of volume and would've quickly become overwhelmed but for your efforts at keeping the numbers down. Shouldn't we find out which scenario is accurate? If it's the first one, then you could save yourself the effort and let the bot do it, while you could spend your time doing something more fun, productive, or something a bot simply could not do.

1346:

browser's search-in-page function to look for "Draft:". It might have more than 200 pages in it, so that I have to use the category's next button to search more than one page's worth of category entries. It might have so many pages in it that I have to do a full-on incategory search with Knowledge's search function. So reducing the amount of time involved in the job isn't just a matter of making it easier to disable the categories after the draft has been found — it also requires finding ways to reduce the number of categorized drafts that even have to

22: 1935: 1007:

for everyone involving a user script. If we go to the the script requests page, we can request a script to be written that will just do this automatically. Then neither of us or anyone else will ever have to bother with this issue again. As things stand now, I just see this as a giant waste of your time, and mine, on something that ought to be done by bot and could be automated fairly easily, thus freeing us up to do something more productive. Thanks,

2818: 2567: 2896: 2615: 2447: 2316: 2186: 2083: 1656: 2259: 2010: 2518: 815: 999:

add the draft categories template, followed in this case, at least, by an explanation that have been removed and draft-protecting them. Also, if it takes less time to just remove them, which is definitely true, it takes a whole lot more to replace them again, and protect them with the draft categories template, which is what I’ve been doing.

2054: 2153:. What do we do? I dont have time to keep restoring them but use the list regularly. Can we come to a consensus at WP:Film on format? I don't mind creating a separate A-Z list but we're going to have duplicate pages for older years. I think the release list belongs on the xxxx in film lists by year or even 910:. This merely results in unnecessary extra work for one or more editors: one to tag the Draft as uncategorized, one to remove the uncategorized tag and add the categories back in again, and one to explain the situation. Instead, just leave the categories in the Draft where they are, and surround them with 1521:

have the AFC submission template on it, then it won't be in that maintenance category, and thus the bot won't ever see or catch it at all. Again, I don't monitor the bot's edit activity, so I don't know how many drafts it typically catches in a day — but it only catches categories on drafts that have

975:

of categorized drafts in one shot, the extra time accumulates into a much, much bigger burden than they can actually be expected to volunteer to take on. So, sure, if I come across one or two pages in isolation, disabling categories instead of removing them isn't that much of an imposition on my time

1876:

each category to find the offending draft (which is another reason why the job takes hours to get through even doing it the quick way). I would have to feed AWB a list of the drafts themselves, not a list of the affected categories, but there's no way to turn a list of the affected categories into a

1778:

than simply removing them does. People do all kinds of strange things with categories on draft or sandbox pages: declaring them in unexpected places in the page, placing several distinct clusters of categories at different places in the same page, using categories that a page wouldn't belong in even

1504:

I checked the edit histories of several articles the last time I did a run, precisely because of this conversation — and many of the pages I dealt with had been in the categories for an entire week, because they had been placed in categories on May 26 or 27. The report isn't catching categories that

1101:

No, we can't, because the pages absolutely cannot stay in categories for any length of "meantime". It's not a "leave it for weeks and weeks of no action pending an eventual alternative solution" job, it's a "drafts must be immediately taken out of categories the moment they're found" job. And again,

1048:

page at a time, and lots of drafts don't get approved at all — so any "extra" time that has to be put into categorizing the approved draft amounts to a couple of minutes at most, while the extra time that has to be put into polluted-category cleanup can add up to half or more of an entire day. So as

1032:

anyway, I've asked if that bot could automatically disable any active categories that are on the draft at the same time, so that we could invest a whole lot less time into draft category cleanup, but that bot's maintainer refused. So I tried asking if another bot could be set loose on the task, only

1021:

Oh, trust me, I've asked for a bot to look after that before. Not all, certainly, but a lot of drafts have categories on them because they were created in mainspace and then got sandboxed by another editor for lacking sourcing or whatever, without that other editor taking the extra step of disabling

1006:

But honestly, removing the categories isn’t really an improvement in many cases, and if it’s too burdensome to go through them and draft protect them, then maybe the best thing is not to remove them at all. Given how repetitive and pattern-based the problem is, I think there may be a better solution

998:

Understood; I get it; it definitely takes longer that way. but there’s a problem, because just removing them, creates triple the problem for other editors, who are adding in a no-categories template, followed by another editor removing the template again and putting the categories back in and has to

951:

So, for all of those reasons, removing the categories from a page takes only a few seconds per page, while disabling them can take up to two or three minutes per page. Sure, that isn't a very big burden if you're dealing with just one or two categorized drafts at a time — but if I'm dealing with the

1897:

I admit I have been retired from wikipedia for years, and while I admit I have not been on here for nearly as long as you, and no doubt appreciate your service to the site, please humor me, as I am curious and not being hostile. Please break it down, barney style, as I was a borderline ASVAB waiver

1544:

That is really good information. I'm not sure why the bot is programmed that way and I will see if it's possible to track down why it was done that way. Maybe the bot can be adjusted to do what you suggest, and then we won't have that problem anymore. Also, not sure why PrimeBot was deactivated, if

1489:

How do you know the bot failed to catch them all? If you are deleting them before the bot gets there, then it won't find those, but maybe it would have a few minutes or hours later. Although bots are fast, they are not infinitely fast, and if you are looking at the category at the same time the bot

1376:

But if a solution would leave the report itself unchanged in size, and required me to continue searching each category to find the individual drafts and deal with their categories manually, then there's no possible way for any such script to be a quicker alternative than HotCat if the script wasn't

1345:

I have to click on each individual category listed in the report, and do one of several different things to find the draft: the category might have only a few pages in it, in which case the draft is easy to find just by eyeballing the list. It might have enough pages in it that I have to pull up my

1177:

is to check each category one by one to search for pages whose titles begin with "Draft:", and there's no way to generate a text file of the individual pages for an AWB batch. (The polluted categories report additionally doesn't know how to distinguish "categories for articles that also have drafts

1904:

Why are you editing user's sandbox pages? Does that not belong to me? It is not a published article. Is there something about categories that mess with the site? If so, please let me know, so I can prevent it from happening again. I don't want to create more work for whatever task force you belong

1135:

which will be the best of both worlds. I’m sure we could get someone with AWB experience to help with setting this up, if you don’t know how to do it. The bot alternative would be even better as it would solve the problem at bot-speed, and then none of these would ever turn up in whatever feed you

1124:

Are you using AWB or some tool-assist to do this? I’m not an AWB user, but as I understand, it is very good at recognizing patterns and making alterations based on them, and this seems tailor-made for that sort of thing, so instead of deleting the categories, you could just have AWB wrap them in

1057:

have the tools in place to automate it, I have to be able to minimize the amount of time that actually has to be spent on it, because getting drafts out of categories they shouldn't be in takes hours and hours longer to deal with fixing than putting pages into categories in the first place does.

894:

page that has no sources to back it up with. Specifically they are adding a player to the roster when there is no evidence on the internet, either by the club, league, or anywhere else that this transaction has occurred. I have undone the edit multiple times but they keep adding it back. Please

1312:

I am going to make a script request for someone to build a script to add the draft categories protection. Can you please describe the procedure you use now to delete categories? I want to make sure that the script will be at least as easy and fast or faster than what you are doing now. Thanks,

946:

novice draft creators who don't know standard Knowledge process don't always place the categories where they're normally expected to be, or sometimes place more than one separate cluster of categories in more than one different place in the draft, meaning that they end up having to be searched

1197:

AWB additionally doesn't offer me any way to verify whether any given category is a redlink that doesn't exist, or a duplicate-categorized parent of another category that the page is already also in, or a category that the page wouldn't even belong in at all anyway — all of those are types of

1341:

the draft — which is precisely why it's already a two or three hour job even doing it the quickest possible way, and there's no way that a category-disabling script that I had to manually invoke could reduce that amount of upfront time enough to make just disabling the categories a more

2867: 1040:

categorized drafts all in one shot, it was immediately catching 20 to 30 categorized drafts every 24 hours, so that they could be dealt with promptly in a shorter amount of time per day — but it doesn't, so we're left with having to work within the constraints of the report as it

1282:

any rule that disabling is required and removal is forbidden. So going around readding disabled versions of categories that other editors have removed from drafts just isn't a job that needs to be done in the first place, because "disable and do not remove" is simply not a rule.

1391:

I think I understood the essential points there, so let me run with it and see what happens. I’ll ping you from wherever, so you can follow along. Might not be right away as I’m mobile. Hopefully something will come out of this to make your life easier, at least in this point.

1982:

for you, its creating deadlinks and not really fixing citations correctly , Not sure if I should report this to you (admin) or another editor with other type of rights on wiki. hopefully you can revert it and stop it before it goes around doing it to hundreds of article.

1422:

are both devoted to this task and do it automatically. I believe that PrimeBOT might no longer be active but DannyS bot is, so it should handle all of the cases you are currently doing manually. If you think it is missing some, can you please leave some examples? Thanks,

1328:

If this was a script that I still had to visit each categorized draft to manually invoke, then there's no way it can possibly save me any significant mount of time. As I explained above, the polluted categories report just produces a list of the implicated

2042: 1052:

I mean, I'd dearly love to not have to spend nearly as much time on it anymore, but it's not a task that can just be ignored outright — it's a thing I do because it has to get done, not a thing I do because I think it's fun or enjoyable. So until we

1002:

I apologize for the couple dozen notifications you got today about the removals, and it may be best to go into your settings and disable notifications for me so you don’t get these notifications all the time when I restore the draft-protected

1072:

Interesting to hear te history behind it. I’ll see if I can get some movement going on a bit, whether the same one with a new task, or a brand new one. Thanks for the detailed explanation, that gives me a better window into what is going on.

1694: 1663: 1649: 2699:

Venues where the events this collective attended are one of the few ways to add legitimate sources. I add citations with the actual event posters - like the one for Big Pooh & Slum Village, it mentions ALAIZ & some of the crew:

2692:

I have added sources that speak directly about ALAIZ collective. Or things mentioned in the page sections. How can you establish notability without facts? Media articles in the press gives facts & legitimize what the page is about.

1120:

You just keep doing them and I just keep undoing them which seems like a giant waste of both of our time, but I can’t keep up with you because you are too fast for me, and I’m thumb-typing on a mobile device which makes it doubly

1644: 1508:

The thing is, if you read that report for DannyS712 bot, it's not programmed to just scour draftspace looking for any and all categorized drafts across the board — it's programmed to monitor one specific maintenance category,

1474:

an example of at least one categorized draft (and sometimes several) that the bot failed to catch. So luckily I don't need to compile a list of missed drafts, because that report already constitutes a list of missed drafts.

1505:

have had drafts in them for a few minutes, such that the bot might come along in just five more minutes — it's catching categories that have had drafts in them for days and days, because the bot never came along at all.

1845:

acceptable options, it is simply not my responsibility to choose the "days and days to get through the batch" option instead of the "wham through it in the quickest amount of time possible and then move on" option.

2289:

page (potential BLP issue. One who began that way has actually stuck and become an editor, but has been personally attacking me consistently and not engaging on the talk page. Apologies for letting this get here.

2154: 2832: 1828:

to get through them all. But it isn't my responsibility to devote days of my life to that: it's not a thing I do because I think it's fun or enjoyable, it's a thing I do because it has to get done, so I am

1194:

rather than a misfiled draft — so even if it were possible to generate an AWBable batch report out of it, that would still catch some pages that don't actually need any action and miss some pages that do.)

1265:

an essential task. So if you're finding it a burden, consider that it's not essential in the first place, and thus is a burden you don't actually have to take on — disabling categories on drafts is not a

2037:

error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (

677: 2038: 2884: 2808: 2354: 2323: 2309: 1249:

rule stating that categories on draft pages must always just be disabled rather than removed, and some types of categories (redlinks, duplicates, ones that the page would never belong in regardless)

1166:

a thing that has to be done. So the problem here isn't that I'm doing anything incorrect or improper, it's that you're making unnecessary busywork for yourself on a task that isn't necessary at all.

963:

So, sure, to the outside observer it doesn't seem like that big a burden to invest the extra time into disabling the categories instead of removing them, because the outside observer is only seeing

659:

has reverted several of those edits, falsely claiming I’m some such of competitor in local media in Sheboygan which I don’t own any interests in media publishing in Sheboygan County. In one edit on

2504: 2304: 2121: 2090: 2076: 2071: 874:

You declined this draft, but I made changes to it that I think solved the initial issue. If you could take another look and give me some feedback I would be appreciative. Thanks for your time.

2581: 1820:

inappropriately categorized draft and sandbox pages all at once, which means it's already going to take me several hours to get through all of them even the quick way, and if I did it the

2537: 2485: 2454: 2440: 2224: 2193: 2179: 1214:

time as any other DRAFTNOCAT cleanup, not things that can just be left on the page for a future round of other cleanup — but AWB offers me no way to determine whether any given category

2435: 2174: 1442:

would always be empty, because if the bot were catching all the categorized drafts then there wouldn't be any categories with drafts in them for that report to detect. The fact that it

1210:

cleanup work in the future if the page ever gets mainspaced without those redlinked or duplicate categories having been removed. So those are things I have to catch and fix at the

1592:

The bot's modification request is now approved, so there has been progress, but we're not there yet. I'm continuing to monitor and will keep you informed of future developments.

1049:

long as pollution cleanup remains a task that human editors have to spend time doing, the editors who do it have to be able to get it done in the shortest amount of time possible.

717: 2603: 1365:

they ever get picked up by the polluted categories report in the first place. This obviously wouldn't catch every categorized draft across the board, because that isn't the

72: 65: 60: 55: 48: 43: 2252: 1973:

reason why is because I just saw that a citation bot is messing up references on articles you created. might want to make sure that it's not doing that on more articles.

868: 663:, my photo of a bus in service was removed because he claimed permissions were questionable and the photo was posed. Then there is the challenge of updating the photo on 1169:

AWB isn't a viable alternative, either. There's no way to make an AWB-compatible text file out of the polluted categories report, for one thing — it lists the affected

940:

sometimes the page is in bad categories that it wouldn't belong in even if it were in mainspace, which makes more cleanup work down the line if they're just left there,

2557: 708: 1708: 1635: 1158:

a rule that any categories that are found on drafts have to just be disabled rather than removed, that means that getting drafts out of categories is a thing that

748:"Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country 2856: 1358: 668: 749: 1178:

in them" from "categories for drafts that also have articles in them" — it just checks and lists every category that mixes both drafts and mainspace articles

1901:

Also, since it has been years for me, I am sure much has changed, and I never did fully learn WikiMarkup, and the little I do remember, is mostly forgotten.

1791:

of whether I was removing or just disabling other categories, using redlinked categories that don't even exist to be used and would still have to be removed

2552: 936:

As I keep telling people, for a variety of reasons it takes a significantly longer amount of time to disable categories than it does to merely remove them:

1419: 2754: 2731: 2944: 2368: 1813: 1439: 1522:

the AFC submission template on them, and does not catch categories on drafts that don't have the AFC submission template on them, and a lot of drafts

2291: 2135: 1438:

I have no sense of how many categorized drafts DannyS712 bot catches, but I can state categorically that it doesn't catch them all — if it did, then

1106:

that categories on draft pages must always just be disabled and can never be removed outright, so I'm not doing anything improper or inappropriate.

956:

of pages to deal with all at once. Which means it's already a two or three hour job even just to get through it the quicker way, and would become a

943:

sometimes the page is in redlinked categories that don't even exist at all, which makes more cleanup work down the line if they're just left there,

2598: 2499: 2238: 1627: 1415: 2382:. I added it to Cronenberg's filmography back on June 10, but never made any attempt to create an article for it. I wondered what it was about. 2149:

etc has been reverted back to the release date list with the unnecessarily bloated cast. It is so much easier to find films in a clean A-Z like

1809: 2282:

Hi, I was looking to see if you'd be able to provide Admin-based help on issue I've got with a page/with a user, or at least provide a look?

1087:

I just undid some more of these. Can we please hold off on this kind of edit until we get a bot going or something? It’s not helpful. Thanks,

2918:, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under 2911: 2641:, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under 2634: 2630: 2473:, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under 2466: 2462: 2342:, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under 2335: 2331: 2212:, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under 2205: 2201: 2109:, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under 2102: 2098: 1682:, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under 1675: 1671: 2667: 1905:

to. But I got a notification via email of someone editing my sandbox, and for a layman like me, I am sure you can understand my confusion.

875: 2243: 851:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow! 898:

1/13/23 - The vandalism is occurring again. Would you be able to ban the IP addresses that are adding the incorrect information? TYIA

2930: 2903: 2889: 2672: 2272: 2823: 2809: 2785:, and they’ve, as far as I can tell, made a promo-only talk page that would get a G11 (or at least a U5) if it wasn’t a Talk Page. 1510: 1357:

reduce the amount of time I have to spend working through the polluted categories report in any sense would be a bot going through

1556: 1044:

But also, AFC approval doesn't happen on entire batches of hundreds of drafts all at once — each AFC reviewer approves or rejects

1036:

Of course, another alternative would be if the report were generated daily, so that instead of updating once a week with a couple

1409: 2885: 2604: 2436: 2305: 2175: 2072: 1645: 2801: 890:

Since November 16, 2022, a user who is not logged in, just identified by their IP address has been adding information to the

1980: 2715: 2373: 1575: 1026: 1630:) that you edited earlier, has now been deleted. Please correct it and help Knowledge expand. Thank you professional user 788:

Would like to discuss why these pages were taken down and how I can get them put back up and also make sure they stay up.

2915: 2837: 2638: 2586: 2470: 2339: 2209: 2106: 1679: 1631: 2803: 2711: 2907: 2845: 2626: 2528: 2510: 2458: 2327: 2197: 2094: 1995: 1667: 901: 2701: 2420:

Sorry, but I don't feel comfortable getting tangled up in that kind of thing on a topic I don't know anything about.

2391: 2255:

case? It is unbecoming with the repeated pattern of edits by associated IP addresses. Appreciate your assist on this

1322: 923: 1755: 1737: 989: 2402: 2066: 1841:

that categories on draft or user pages just be disabled rather than removed, but rather disabling and removing are

1713: 1517:

catches pages that have both categories and the AFC submission template on them at the same time. If a draft page

2766: 679: 627:

I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind.

2772: 2150: 2146: 1718:

Why are you deleting all the categories instead of using other options? There is a special template to be used

1234:

wouldn't be the way to go with it, because AWB doesn't feature any of the tools I would need to fix any of the

1162:

to be done while going around restoring disabled categories to drafts that had categories removed from them is

755:"Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network" 699: 2707: 2653: 2622: 2608: 2299: 2034: 1886: 1855: 1096: 1601: 1587: 1568: 1539: 1499: 1484: 1401: 1386: 1292: 1145: 1115: 1082: 1067: 1016: 2683:

I just edited the tone of the whole page to reflect neutrality. I am unsure what you mean by advertising?

2429: 1957: 1795:

of whether I was removing or just disabling other categories, and on and so forth. All of which means that

558: 553: 548: 541: 536: 531: 524: 519: 514: 507: 502: 497: 490: 485: 480: 473: 468: 463: 456: 451: 446: 439: 434: 429: 422: 417: 412: 405: 400: 395: 388: 383: 378: 371: 366: 361: 354: 349: 344: 337: 332: 327: 320: 315: 310: 303: 298: 293: 286: 281: 276: 269: 264: 259: 252: 247: 242: 235: 230: 225: 218: 213: 208: 201: 196: 191: 184: 179: 174: 167: 162: 157: 150: 145: 140: 133: 128: 123: 116: 111: 106: 99: 94: 89: 1920: 1432: 2786: 2747: 1261:

task, while going around readding and disabling categories that other people have removed from drafts is

847:

and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a

733: 591: 82: 77: 38: 2830:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

2579:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

1022:

the categories in the process — so since there's already a bot that detects such moves and tags them as

2696:

If this about the venues? If you actually search the establishments mentioned most of them are closed.

2000: 1991: 672: 2169: 758: 756: 2796: 2268: 1722: 1129: 721: 2826:

has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the

2575:

has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the

1976:

I don't know how to track down the person who used the bot to make those edits to all the articles.

971:

pages that they were interested in — but to the editor who actually has to power through a batch of

2827: 2576: 2572: 2558: 2277: 2062: 1639: 729: 2678: 867: 771:

Looking to get some pages made by Asopa Films put back up and to also save one from being deleted

713: 2782: 2523: 2506: 2022: 1916: 907: 2739: 1949: 1860:

AWB isn't a viable way of dealing with the batch. The reports don't give me a list of the draft

1226:

of another category that's also on the same page already, and on and so forth. So even if there

2852: 2735: 2594: 2879: 794: 2706:

Lounge Urban is where big acts & promoters put their posters/press releases in Montreal.

2162: 1987: 638: 2414: 906:

I know you are just trying to help, but please stop removing Draft categories as you did in

2793: 2728: 2295: 2264: 802:

Please link me to this wikipedia elections policy in which you discussed on my talk page.

664: 655:

I have been adding more current photos I’ve taken of subjects and places in Sheboygan but

8: 2058: 2014: 1945: 1751: 1733: 1414:

I think you can save yourself the time you spend doing these as a manual effort, as bots

860: 1742:

Saw the comment from above, if dealing with dozens or hunders of pages, try configuring

808: 763: 725: 2763: 2547: 2532: 1912: 1892: 1703: 1597: 1583: 1564: 1550: 1495: 1428: 1397: 1377:

doing anything about the upfront "finding the drafts in the first place" time as well.

1318: 1141: 1092: 1078: 1012: 930: 919: 844: 693: 1257:

if other categories are merely being disabled. Getting drafts out of categories is an

2842: 2590: 2410: 1245:

But ultimately, the only rule is that draft pages can't be in categories — there is

2387: 2379: 2140: 1940:

Thank you so much I did not realize my Sandbox was listed in all those categories!

1728:, another option is to use colon in front (]) or comment it out  1206:

if you're just disabling other categories, because leaving them there just creates

633: 2702:

https://loungeurbain.com/evenement/slum-village-et-big-pooh-en-concert-a-montreal/

2538:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 20 § Brave The Movie (Movie)

1765:

that categories on drafts must be merely disabled rather than removed. That is an

1230:

a way to generate an AWBable text file out of the polluted categories report, AWB

2875: 2778: 2777:

Roar! And stuff. ‘Recently active admins’ says you’re about? What do you make of

879: 856: 660: 2919: 2642: 2474: 2343: 2213: 2110: 1683: 885: 774:

Aisha and Rahul (2009) - this page has been taken down already, NON WIKI PAGE -

2861: 2050: 1941: 1780: 1747: 1729: 1373:

of them, and thus save time because the report itself would be reduced in size.

891: 778:

Depth of Pyaar (2019) - this page has been taken down already, NON WIKI PAGE -

656: 2679:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ALAIZ_collective&oldid=1247292859

2049:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

1761:

Firstly, as I've already explained more times than I care to count, it is not

976:— but if I'm having to get through hundreds of pages at once, it adds up to a 779: 775: 570: 2760: 2542: 2245: 1743: 1698: 1593: 1579: 1560: 1546: 1491: 1424: 1393: 1314: 1137: 1088: 1074: 1008: 915: 823: 689: 21: 2421: 2406: 2401:

Just wondering if you would take the responsibility of closing the move at

2286: 1970:

I just wanted to know if you're watching or monitoring a page you created?

1965: 1925: 1878: 1847: 1531: 1476: 1378: 1284: 1107: 1059: 981: 837: 1454:

catching all categorized drafts, so anything that shows up in that report

2383: 1621: 1190:

editor who has to determine that the problem in some case is a misfiled

650: 576: 574: 2871: 2396: 2026: 2002: 1450:

categories with drafts in them each time it runs means that the bot is

1934: 1173:, not the individual draft pages in them, so the only way to find the 612: 2925: