User talk:Interwicket

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive: /2008

French apostrophe[edit]

Hello. This bot has just changed the interwiki link in z'. Originally, the link to the French version was fr:z’, but it is now fr:z'. Please check the apostrophes carefully. This change is meaningless because in French the correct apostrophe is the former, and articles with the latter are all redirects. — TAKASUGI Shinji 19:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is working correctly; iwiki links are always to exactly the same form. Note that it links to the redirect(s), so follow the link and you will arrive just where expected. Robert Ullmann 12:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you please ignore the difference between ' and ’ in French interwikis? I don't know whether this bot is working also on French Wikipedia, but please don't change interwikis there. Now fr:z’ links to en:z', but you shouldn't change it to en:z’. — TAKASUGI Shinji 17:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
firstly, this is not "wikipedia". Secondly, wikt iwikis from en.wikt link to the exact form, including redirects as I noted, so they work correctly. What the fr.wikt wants as policy will be addressed and followed of course, but at present Interwicket will only add a link to an fr.wikt entry that is not a redirect to an en.wikt entry that is not a redirect. The fr redirects are working properly and linked to properly from en, there is no issue here. Robert Ullmann 22:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Running in simple.wikt[edit]

Can you clarify whether the bot will add links to en.wikt as entries are created on simple.wikt, or the other way round, or both? If it's from en to simple, then it will almost certainly have no work to do.--Brett 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Both. But as you note, it finds little to do. Presumably you are always including the en link when creating a simple entry, and adding the simple link to the en page? Does make sense ;-). Robert Ullmann 10:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi. You can make a request for bot's flag in es:Wikcionario:Café. Bye. Lin linao 06:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, done, Robert Ullmann 11:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


You have now been granted a bot flag at no.wikt. Thanks! --Eivind (t) 07:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Robert Ullmann 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

links in edit summaries[edit]

Would it be possible to make the edit summaries link to the pages Interwicket has linked to. That way, it'd be easier to go to see what is written about the word on other Wiktionaries about the word and compare it to our own article. V85 12:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could always go through the entry and the iwiki links, as that is what they are there for. The edit summary often includes quite a few language codes (30-40) so it can't always do this. But it might link the first few. I'll try that. Robert Ullmann 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
As I usually see Interwicket's actions from the watchlist, it would be easier to just go directly from there, as it makes it easier going back and forth. I like the solution you've come up with. (For now, I am mainly working with French, Thai and Lao, and there is rarely more than a couple of interwikis being added each time.) V85 00:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi Robert!

On your pt.wikt talk page you wrote:

User "Interwicket" is the 'bot that adds interwiki (inter-language)
links to entries in the English Wiktionary. It is designed for the
Wiktionaries. It is not the "wikipedia bot", it is much more efficient.

Please add a request for bot status on the bot approval page. A simple request stating the basic facts about your bot is ok. Ah, and you can write it in English, it's no problem... :-)

After a few days (usually three or four), if no one objects, I'll give you bot status and you can operate in full mode.

--ValJor 10:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I've done that. Robert Ullmann 11:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have now given you bot status on the pt.wikt
--ValJor 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ko wiktionary[edit]

Bot request page on ko is here. After one week, request for a bot flag (meta:Steward requests/Bot status) should be followed. Regards --아흔(A-heun) 11:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No bureaucrat on ko? Okay, thanks for the pointer. Robert Ullmann 11:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

some interwiki added by VolkovBot[edit]

(helpful bit, but please keep any significant discussion here)

de:Benutzer Diskussion:Interwicket et:Kasutaja arutelu:Interwicket fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Interwicket ka:მომხმარებლის განხილვა:Interwicket lt:Naudotojo aptarimas:Interwicket li:Euverlèk gebroeker:Interwicket ms:Perbincangan Pengguna:Interwicket nl:Overleg gebruiker:Interwicket ja:利用者‐会話:Interwicket oc:Discussion Utilizaire:Interwicket pt:Usuário Discussão:Interwicket uk:Обговорення користувача:Interwicket zh:User talk:Interwicket

cs wikt[edit]

Hello, if you want a flag for your bot on cs.wiktionary, please make a note on page cs:Wikislovník:Žádost o status bota. Best regards. --Reaperman 15:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. Finding the request pages on all the wikts is a challenge. Some of them have a redirect in the project namespace from "Bot policy" to the local page, so that looking up "Project:Bot policy" will take you there, but most don't. Cheers, Robert Ullmann 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


You can request bot-flag on the Danish wiktionary on da:Wiktionary:Administratorer#Robotter. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 16:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Robert Ullmann 16:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Robert Ullmann. Could you please change it so that it sort the links the same way as on meaning that fi (Suomi) should come after sl (Slovenščina)? Thanks! Kinamand 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That change has to go in the "framework" code, specifically in (Yes, a really lousy design, not my fault!) Getting it to happen can take a while. I can easily do it in my code, but then other bots will continue sorting the other way. (It doesn't quite cause an edit war, as neither will edit specifically to sort, Interwicket only does that on its "home" wikt, so the codes will just get re-arranged when some iwiki is added or removed.) See meta:Interwiki sorting order. (And note it is all about the 'pedias ...) At the very end there is a link to add a request at SourceForge. Robert Ullmann 11:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer and interesting link to wikimedia. Then I will suggest that you change your code so that it sorts based on local name of language. I can just block other bots if they sort wrong so no problem there. Kinamand 20:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd much rather cooperate with other bots; it is good to have more than one (e.g. VolkovBot runs on the en.wikt, is the only one that bothers to use the option -noredirect that keeps it from removing links to redirects) we can request it get added to the framework code and I can update mine in parallel; but I'm not very happy with doing something that isn't going to make it into the framework presently. Is there a discussion of the sort order on da.wikt somewhere? Robert Ullmann 12:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Added request to SF here but they will take forever. Has this been discussed? Robert Ullmann 14:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


Could you please create a separate user for your bot (Say, InterwicketBot) as opposed to the user of the human owner? Use {{bot|owners_name}} there and we'll arrange the bot flag. Thanks! -- Wesha 00:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Interwicket" is the 'bot. The human is "Robert Ullmann" ... Robert Ullmann 11:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot status on el.wikt[edit]

Hi! You have been given bot status at the greek wiktionary. Have a nice time among us! - Regards, Lou 05:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I noticed that (and the 'bot noticed ;-). Very good. Robert Ullmann 11:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

bot flag on ja.wikt[edit]

This bot does not have a bot flag on ja.wikt. You can request for it at ja:Wiktionary:ボット/使用申請. Thank you. --Ninomy-Talk 06:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have done that. The request pages on the various wikts can be very hard to find, pointers are very useful! Robert Ullmann 11:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome ;-) And now, this bot has got a bot flag. --Ninomy-Talk 12:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

interwiki on ms:[edit]

Wrt this edit, do you think you can follow the same sorting code as in Wikipedia? We sort by first word of local language. ...Aurora... 11:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Annoyingly, this is not in the framework code (lots of things aren't ...) Robert Ullmann 14:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Added request to SF here but they take forever; will do it for my code in the meantime. Robert Ullmann 14:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. I thought when we applied to change the interwiki order before, it applies to all projects, not just Wikipedia. As for now, VolkovBot is the only active bot in ms.wikt. ...Aurora... 11:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I can see how that request was interpreted as applying only to the pedia; "mswiki" is the wikipedia, while the wiktionary is "mswiktionary" or ms.wikt (etc.) You might want to add a comment to my request if you want it to apply to all projects now.
Where is the bot flag application page on ms.wikt? Cheers, Robert Ullmann 16:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see that now. Oh well, the only other ms project is Wikibooks, which is really small. It can wait.
There's no bot page yet, no one has asked for it before. I'll create one in the next few days, it'll be at ms:Wiktionary:Bot. ...Aurora... 11:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Added the request, cheers, Robert Ullmann 12:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot request on the Swahili Wiktionary[edit]

Hello, Interwicket. I saw large number of your edit, pity you didn't add your bot on apropriate place where all the bots are needed to add their request! Your're advising to add your request at here - in order to get bot flag insistantly. Cheers!--Wikipedian Activist (talK 2 mE) 07:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi (;-). As you can see, I've been busy with this for a while. The business of keeping the iwikis reasonably up to date across all 171 wiktionaries in compliance with local policies had been neglected ... Robert Ullmann 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, your bot is great! Please, make a request for bot flag at ca:Viccionari:Bots. --Vriullop 22:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I have added the request. (And noted that Catalan is surprisingly easy to understand, with some context ;-) Robert Ullmann 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
(It's pure Latin evolved ;-)) Now you have the bot flag. --Vriullop 20:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for for the great work of your bot at the occitan wikitionary, sorry for the delay of the answer.We have now given the bot flag to Interwicket. Regards.Jiròni 19:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

oh, very good! thank you. There are lots of iwikis needed that it will work on. Robert Ullmann 21:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Status code[edit]

Now I noticed your bot updates its status on each of the wikis its on. I was wondering if you have that code posted anywhere as that is a pretty usefull piece of code. Or is it mixed in with the rest of the interwicket code? I didn't notice it in there. -Djsasso 02:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Look at the beginning of User:Interwicket/code/reciprocal, the FLwikt class, FLdict class, and flws instance, then the code in getflstatus() immediately following. It reads the status from the API, and then reads a couple of other things in a very hacked up way (:-). The table is written by updstatus(), further down the file. Robert Ullmann 11:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
See User:Interwicket/code/botstatus which is directly usable code, will run by itself. Robert Ullmann 16:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello! I want to have tk.wikt to be flagged. Kind regards!--Hanberke 04:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


You have been granted bot flag in ml.wikt. --Jacob.jose 05:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you ;-) Robert Ullmann 13:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

linking empty pages[edit]

from my talk page

Hello Robert Ullmann, I just noticed that Interwicket keeps adding links to empty pages (which had been removed before), see [1], please could You fix this, users that are sent to pages that are completely empty (only containing some interwikilinks) must feel like they have been fooled or something, so I prefer not doing such things. Best regards, --birdy (:> )=| 20:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I am looking at this. Is easy enough to skip it when it is looked at (of course). The complication is not picking it up over and over again as missing links either for that page or the ones that would link to it. And then at some point when content is added, picking it up and adding the links. (The case where it gets deleted at some point is easy and already handled.)
How frequent is this case? Are there lots of blank pages out there? (The example given is a mistake, the bot couldn't delete the page; should have tagged it or replaced it properly.) Shouldn't "blank" pages always be deleted?
There is an interesting comparison with the pl.wikt's policy not to link to blank templates in the ru.wikt. In that case the page looks very much non-blank, as it has a number of template calls, but still has no content. A better method for recognizing content-free pages would be good, but it is also an interestingly complex problem. Robert Ullmann 13:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hm, this is interesting, that is probably a software change in the pywikipedia bot, I first thought it always did that, but it seems this is new. However I don't mind the empty template pages in ru.wikt, people can add things there if they go there, but completely blank pages in Wiktionary are a problem since every Wiktionary has a bit different layout and uses templates a bypassing visitor can't possibly know. It looks that probably some page imports went wrong in sw.wikt, see the history of sw:vatn (be careful not to restore the first version, it is not a German but Icelandic word), sw:Afrikaans, etc.) I don't know how frequent that is :S
Best regards, --birdy (:> )=| 10:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There hasn't been a s/w change in pywikipedia to do this (since 5 September 2006). The code was reformatted a little bit. The 'bot action at sw:vatn was "correct", but as I noted, it can't delete the page. (And my sysop rights there keep evaporating, so it is really difficult to manage.) I'm noodling over how to figure out how frequent blank pages are in general; the overall revision info in the indexes in the API isn't very helpful.) Robert Ullmann 11:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this has been "fixed" (or at least made to work enough like that we shouldn't see bot wars ;-). I don't know what the "correct" answer is; blank pages are probably better deleted.

If you note any questionable edits after this time, please bring them to my attention. Robert Ullmann 13:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi, thank you for your work at id.wiktionary. Could you please write your bot request at id:Wiktionary:Bot. I will activate it ASAP. Thanks! --IvanLanin 06:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Granted. Thanks. --IvanLanin 19:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing links at the Irish Wiktionary[edit]

Hi, I've just noticed that Interwicket has been removing some links which it shouldn't. There are different opinions about how to show that most country names in Irish take the article - basically either including the article in the page title or not. This results in pages with different titles referring to the same word, e.g. the case I just noticed "Germany" is either Gearmáin or an Ghearmáin (or maybe An Ghearmáin). Personally I think the sensible approach is to just use the word without the article for the page title and then include the article in the headword or in a usage note. However, at the moment this article is called An Ghearmáin (some zealous soul renamed it) on the Irish wikt and Gearmáin on the English one.

I don't see any easy way for you to recognize these cases, but maybe Interwicket could be a bit less enthusiastic about removing interwiki links. Thanks. ☸ Moilleadóir 16:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC) (Talk @ Irish Wiktionary)

That is just the point: there is no way to recognize those cases (and dozens of other "special" cases); the bots (all of them, not just Interwicket, which is following the established rules ;-) remove any links that aren't to the same exact spelling. See functionality discussion. There are many, many cases that can only be handled with redirects (and not just for iwiki, think of the users trying to look the words up, eh?) Robert Ullmann 12:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, so we need quite a few redirects then. Can I ask where were these rules established?
Cheers, ☸ Moilleadóir 18:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

replacing instead of adding[edit]

Why is Interwicket replacing links instead of adding? On French Wiktionnaire, it replaced the Serbo-Croatian interwiki with Turkish (and here with Korean) instead of just adding the new interwiki link. Please fix this. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't "replacing"; there just happen to be different things going on. There are various set of codes; the existing active wikts, the ones known to the framework, closed (but existing wikts), invalid codes ("sh", deleted by ISO), etc. This results in at least 4, and I think 5 mostly-the-same but not quite code sets Interwicket is dealing with. I've just been thinking about getting the stops (codes not used) in better shape, (by just, I mean last night, when I should have been sleeping ;-). The most troublesome set are these bad codes (also including se, tlh) recognized by the MW configuration. Robert Ullmann 12:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, it (like the other bots) is using the Wikipedia "framework" calls to update links. A program calls getLanguageLinks to get the set and replaceLanguageLinks to remove them and replace with a new set. You'd think that the set removed and replaced would be the same set as "get" returns? You'd be wrong. (The "framework" code is crap, and I periodically have problems and replace parts of it. Ought to get rid of it all, but other bits are useful ...) Note that the edit summary in both cases does not say "-sh"; Interwicket isn't trying to remove the iwiki. Robert Ullmann 17:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It did it again (removing link to existing sh article)... I would wish Interwicket would add links to those language editions of Wiktionary, where I have no account and it is not wothy creating one, but it would be really an improvement, if at least those links, which I add manually, were not removed. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I had added intentionally only the sh interwiki on [2] after creating an article in Wiktionnaire to see what happens. Interwicket again removed the sh link while adding the fr. This means that whenever an article appears on one Wiktionary and if there we have already sh, Interwicket will remove the extant sh link while adding the new. Eventually, this would lead to the removal of all sh links, unless sh is placed on an æqual par with other codes and Interwicket begins to recognise it. Can this be fixed? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It is working correctly. Code sh is an invalid (deleted by SIL/ISO) code, and should not be linked. The "sh" wiktionary will be closed in due course when someone gets around to running the process. Don't waste your time. I have read your "credo" re "Serbo-Croation"; please do understand that you are at odds with reality, international standards, and policy. It is pointless to try to push it. Interwicket isn't hunting down and deleting sh links (although it should be), but it does remove invalid links when it is replacing (also tlh, tokipona, se and a few other bogosities). Robert Ullmann 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
So you refuse to fix the problem and adopt the code. Wellaway. My convictions are in accordance with the neutral, non-politicised linguistic status quo. I have learnt this language, I can read and write in it and I can communicate freely with people from both Serbia and Croatia with æqual ability. I do not controvert your right to disagree and to have your own opinion regardless of your knowledge of South Slavic languages, but I never thought that a bot could also be endowed with it. The projects which should be closed are not those of the largest living South Slavic languages, but of artificial, useless constructions such as Volapük, Ido or Esperanto deprived of the slightest vestige of literature or culture... Any prominent writer in them? None. Prominent writers of Serbo-Croatian? Innumerable, including Ivo Andrić, Nobel prise winner, who signed the declaration of the adoption of the language as a state language. And yet Interwicket operates with such misconceptions as eo, id or ... I never bothered to remark the code of the third one. But that is another matter. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[edit]

Annoyingly enough, the Bulgarian Wiktionary has created a bot to create a load of redirections which is taking up nearly all of Interwicket's time. A lot of them 'seem' to be conjugated/declined forms that redirect to the main article, some of them redirect to red links. I'm aware you can't do anything about this, but I thought I'd tell you anyway. I can't read Cyrillic script, but I know what a redirect looks like! Mglovesfun 09:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They did that a while ago; the bot created a lot of "base forms", and lots and lots of redirections from inflected forms. Lmaltier added proper (albeit very simple) form entries to the fr.wikt, also a while ago, and Interwicket has now been linking them. Which is useful, someone looking up an inflected Bulgarian form in the fr.wikt will find a link that will take them to bg.wikt and to the base form (if it exists ...). There were 100K+ of these to do; Interwicket has now finished with them, so it isn't an issue for Interwicket. What bg.wikt wants to do with the broken redirects is SEP. (;-) Robert Ullmann 09:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Some stats from the bg.wikt (run yesterday, as of some recent XML dump):

  • 819753 entries in namespace 0, of which 793458 are redirects (!)
  • there are 37096 missing redirect targets, pointed to by 515447 broken redirects

So a very large part of the titles are redirects, and well over half of those are broken. I did look at the redirects linked to from the fr.wikt, and most seemed okay (but not all), so I suspect that Lmaltier's bot creation of forms correspond better to the existing entriess. But I don't know; I'll have to grab a copy of the fr.wikt and teach my program to check all those versus the set(s) of existing and missing targets. Haven't done that yet ;-) Robert Ullmann 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


Robert, you may wish to see Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2009-06/User:AHbot for bot status.msh210 23:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew and equivalent characters[edit]

Various languages have various characters which can be represented by more than one Unicode value.

Each Wiktionary may have their own preference on which are the "correct" variants to use for page titles each language.

On the English Wiktionary we always use the ASCII apostrophe ' for apostrophes but not for the Hebrew geresh ׳ and the Hawaiian okina ʻ

For the Hawaiian okina other workaround characters are sometimes seen such as the opening single quote ‘ or the backtick `

Some other Wiktionaries do use the ASCII apostrophe for at least the Hebrew geresh.

Another Hebrew character, the maqaf ־ is often represented with an ASCII hyphen, another is the gershayim ״ is often represented with ASCII double quote "

There are probably other such subsitute characters used by various languages.

Here are some Hebrew pages I recently moved to the correct geresh or gershayim spelling where Interwicket has removed the interlanguage link because the other wikis use ASCII equivalents: [3] , [4] , [5]

It would obviously be an improvement if Interwicket could cope with these policy differences between what are essentially the same page names on different Wiktionaries.

As an added complication some Wiktionaries may have redirects from one form to another form. We definitely do this on the English Wiktionary. An improved Interwicket would need to avoid linking to such redirects.

hippietrail 10:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Amusingly, the solution I have been recommending is sort of the exact opposite: always linking to redirects so the various wikts can do whatever. There are many more issues. See functionality discussion. We want to link in the general case to form redirects, as they arrive in the correct place according to the other wikt. A form on an FL wikt that we have as a redirect should link to it, so as to arrive at our entry.
It can't be done in the general case by considering some page names to be the same, because some wikts will distinguish between the page names, while others do not. Whatever we do must also be rigorous so the bot can do it; once we add in even a few manual fixes, the entire iwiki problem disintegrates into a manual or near manual task. (Interwicket does many thousands of edits a day w/o help, you don't want to be doing even a tiny fraction of those manually!) Robert Ullmann 10:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

AutoFormat interaction[edit]

It is not all that uncommon when I add an entry for a derived form that, thanks to templates providing the link to the base form, has no [[links]] present in it, that the following happens:

  1. AutoFormat comes across the entry and adds {{count page}}.
  2. Interwicket comes to the entry and adds one or more interwiki links.
  3. Sometime later, usually much later tho the delay is not a problem, AutoFormat revisits the entry and removes {{count page}}.

That third edit seems redundant, since Interwicket in theory could detect {{count page}} and remove it when it adds an interwiki link. Only problem I perceive as likely is if Interwicket currently has no mechanism to do things differently on different wikis (as opposed to simply doing nothing). In any case, this is definitely a minor performance enhancement tweak rather than anything that adds function, so it likely be worth only minimal effort to accomplish. — Carolina wren discussió 23:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking just about the same thing; watching Interwicket adding the links to the French forms Dawnraybot is creating, that have "count page" when needed included in them. IW will add a link, and sooner or later AF will remove the now redundant "count page". It is good to have the functions separate, not tangled together, but this isn't complicated. IW certainly does have the ability to do things differently on different wikts, there are a number of rules that work that way.
It is a minimal amount of work, even if just as a special case for en.wikt. Is very reasonable to have IW remove it just as a human might. Will do. Robert Ullmann 16:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Done, and works correctly. Thank you. Robert Ullmann 02:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

How to remove wrong links persistently[edit]

I have removed wrong interwiki-links from the german entry PPP (here: the bot has set. I now would like to know whether the bot will set them again during his next run and how to prevent this. Sorry, if the topic has already been discussed here, I didn't read the whole discussion. Jonathan Scholbach 19:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They look like they were perfectly valid interwiki-links to me. If your complaint is that de:PPP has only an entry for the Deutsch use of PPP as an abbreviation while the others have other uses, then add those other uses. Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary interwikis are spelling-to-spelling not meaning-to-meaning. en:PPP and de:PPP should be linked unless the German Wiktionary has chosen to operate differently than the other Wiktionaries on this topic. — Carolina wren discussió 21:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly correct. And all the wikts, including de.wikt, work the same way in this respect for the main namespace. Robert Ullmann 02:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I see. My complaint was that I am unable to add those other uses because they (mostly) do not exist in german. For instance People's Power Party would have another abbreviation than PPP in german and so the other english meanings of PPP as well. But as I can see, it was not the link but my understanding of the interwiki-links which has been wrong. Thank you for the information, Jonathan Scholbach 08:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Interwicket problem?[edit]


The Interwicket bot seems to constantly de-link these French and Greek interwiki links from the corresponding Chinese page. As far as I can tell, the links are correct and should not be removed by Interwicket. Why is it doing it? GiuseppeMassimo 13:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That page, and several others added by "Shibo77" in 2005, appear to have a trailing whitespace character that is causing trouble. It didn't used to, but about a month ago it started to be significant. Will chase it (tomorrow/today, is 3 AM ;-). Don't worry about it for the moment ;-) Robert Ullmann 00:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't know yet whether this is in the DB (somewhere, possibly not in zh.wikt) or some code bug somewhere. The code (on my side) hasn't changed/didn't change at the time this started happening. Have not found it yet. Robert Ullmann 12:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Are stray no-break spaces, treated as valid title characters by the pybot framework, but silently converted to space/underscore by the server s/w:
$dbkey = preg_replace( '/\xE2\x80[\x8E\x8F\xAA-\xAE]/S', '', $dbkey );
$dbkey = preg_replace( '/[ _\xA0\x{1680}\x{180E}\x{2000}-\x{200A}\x{2028}\x{2029}\x{202F}\x{205F}\x{3000}]+/u', '_', $dbkey );

(for my reference, this is the current version, first is BIDI strip, second is WS) "they" did change this recently. Will fix presently. Robert Ullmann 13:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

should be fixed now Robert Ullmann 14:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!!! GiuseppeMassimo 00:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

count page[edit]

Umm... Is this bot supposed to remove the {{count page}} from entries? It seems to be removing quite a lot of them. [6]--Yair rand 01:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See == AutoFormat interaction == above, where I suggested that this bot do that. {{count page}} is a hack that causes entries without any wikilinks to count as entries for our totals. Since interwiki links are sufficient to trigger the count mechanism, then if an interwiki link is added, {{count page}} isn't needed and the AutoFormat bot would remove the template anyway the next time it checks the entry. Having Interwicket do it lets one bot edit do what would otherwise take two bot edits. — Carolina wren discussió 03:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

articles added by bot[edit]

Hi! What's the rule for dealing with human vs. bot added new pages? At the pl.wikt we are currently making some imports with bots and at the same time we create some entries by hand. Interwikis for by-hand-articles are usually added no longer than two hours after creation of the page. Interwikis for by-bot-articles were last added 26 Oct 2009 and then stopped. Set of people is verifying those imports article by article however verification is difficoult without interwikis. We assume that entries without interwikis should have added references and we use dedicated tool for this task. Without interwikis added this tool became useless :( Regards, 12:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! It picks up "human" changes from looking at recent changes, waiting an hour, and putting them on or near the front of its internal queue. (The hour wait is do allow for multiple edits by the creating editor without edit conflicts, and deletion of junk.) Other entries created (e.g. by bots) are picked up on the less frequent index scans, about once a week, and added at/near the end of the internal queue. The presumption has been that these are lower priority. Bot additions sometimes cause the queue length to grow to several days of tasks, this combination keeps the RC/human changes in front, with the typical 2-hour response that you see. So pt.wikt was scanned 26 Oct (as you note), see User:Interwicket/FL status, and will be done again in a day or so.
Interesting tool, I didn't know it existed. I wonder what can be done better here. (Is interesting, when I started doing this it hadn't been done for months in most cases, and there were hundreds of thousands of missing links. Now people expect them within 2 hours ;-) Cheers, Robert Ullmann 17:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I was not "expecting" or "demanding" :) since its your freedom what you are doing as volounteer. I was only worried, that some bot on some wiktionary caused you to stop/limit updating bot-creations (like some broken bot doing broken edits). It fine to know it's about once a week. BTW1: it was about pl.wikt, not pt.wikt, and BTW2, I was the one who asked you somewhere in this discussion page long time ago to introduce delay to interwicked work. Thanks for your great work. 18:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
(hence "expect" with ";-)" ;-) thank you. Robert Ullmann 18:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

sh interwiki[edit]

Dear Robert: could you please make Interwicket not remove interwiki to Serbo-Croatian Wiktionary? If it's not adding it, could at least not remove it? If you don't want to make it add interwiki to sh:, we'll solve that by other means, but it cannot be dealt with while Interwicket keeps removing it. Cheers --Ivan Štambuk 16:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I must agree with Ivan on this one. This bot should not be removing valid interwiki links, even if you have a strong personal bias against it. Doing so could be considered vandalism because it is removing correct links, even though you don't think that Serbo-Croatian is a valid language. I would definitely not want a bot operator to be excluding particular interwikis to other languages just because of a personal bias against it. In my opinion, if you choose to provide services to every other Wiktionary, you should provide it to every Wiktionary, because that is what bot operators are supposed to do, no matter what they believe in. Bot operators are supposed to be neutral parties, and are supposed to provide their bots' services to every Wiktionary when dealing with Interwikis. You won't see me having my bot remove interwikis to the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia just because I think that it isn't a valid language. Instead, I would have it continue adding them, no matter if I think the language is invalid or not. Please correct this behavior. Razorflame 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Uh, Razorflame, this was resolved months ago. See User talk:Robert Ullmann/2009#Bot question. --Yair rand 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


hi Robert, I am from Malayalam wiki community. Currently I am importing thousands of definitions to ml.wiktionary using my bot ml:User:UltraBot. I add english wiktionary link for each english word page (till now my bot has created english word pages only, few thousands of word remaining to be imported). I see that your bot is doing interwiki links there, so you can do interwiki works by following all new pages created by ml:User:UltraBot, if you like. Thanks --Junaidpv 05:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, Interwicket will add all the appropriate interwikis. Do see the section (two above) about articles added by 'bot; Interwicket adds them on a lower priority, so that "human" additions are run first. Interwicket doea all the 'bot additions (and anyting else missed) about once a week. It last looked at the index for ml.wikt on the 22nd, so should run it again in the next day or so. (see User:Interwicket/FL status) Robert Ullmann 23:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi, your bot is almost perfect. I notice that it doesn't update the interwiki of the categories. This is the missing feature to consider your bot as the only one needed on all wikts. Are you planning something in this way? --Diuturno 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ;-) Interwicket is designed specifically for NS:0, with its specific rules. The categories and other namespaces operate like the wikipedia interwikis: entries are linked to the translations on the other wikts. They should be handled by the usual 'pedia intewiki bot code. There are several bot operators doing this. (Mind you, that code could use a lot of work, but that is a separate project; and it still requires "hints" from humans and resolving of conflicts and ambiguities.) Robert Ullmann 22:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello Robert. We are discussing the interwikis-to-redirects issue here and it would be useful to know how your bot handles redirects. --flyax 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See meta:Pywikipediabot/ functionality discussion (if you aren't already aware of that).
Interwicket will by default leave links to redirects alone, neither adding or removing them. Links that were to redirects that have been since deleted are removed (as with any other links to a deleted page).
For some wikts, it will always add links to redirects, see User:Interwicket/redirs, which is read dynamically; adding el.wikt to this configuration file will cause it to begin adding the missing links, and maintain them. See User:Interwicket/FL status for the current report on what it is doing. Robert Ullmann 00:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We have decided to accept interwikis links to redirects. The discussion and voting is here. I've just seen I can't edit User:Interwicket/redirs ? Is there anything else I should do ? --flyax 18:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good. The config page is protected because a vandal could use it to arrange some mayhem. (Which wouldn't be hard to fix, but still ;-). I'll enable it. It will take 7-10 days to find all the cases in its usual scan. Robert Ullmann 19:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Robert. I have just come across a very strange edit made by Interwicket a couple of years ago: [7]. I think that this was definitely a disruptive edit caused by a mistake in the code or something, no? I just wanted to let you know. I only hope that there aren't any more edits like this that have gone unnoticed so far. --Omnipaedista 07:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's an odd one. I've looked at the code that was running then, looking for some race condition or something, nothing jumps out at me. The code running now is completely different.
What would bring those two entries together? The code (then) was working in collating order, those entries are very far apart ("f" to "h"). And the (apparently) written text at flyte isn't modified as the edit summary shows (which is correct, and was done on the next pass in September), so the code didn't pick up the wrong text and process it.
Interesting that AF modified the horam entry earlier, and the text written to flyte was the same as the result of the AF mod. But it isn't just going to turn up in another process hours later, even if on the same machine.
Proxy caching error? But that would result in the code reading the wring text and processing it; but it didn't. Puts aren't cached, and even if a put was repeated, it would write the other (i.e. correct) page. Other edits at about the same time don't show problems, and there isn't any indication from my logs of network problems that day.
Weird. Might be some server-side problem saving the text blobs? (Might be a thread that processed the AF write earlier, and then was stuck? Only a server side thread would, maybe, have seen both of the two transactions.) I remember (vaguely) some other oddities of this sort, not related to IW or AF. Hmm. Robert Ullmann 12:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

small asking[edit]

Hi, May you help me to import automatically and/or generate articles with pywiki ? --Jagwar 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


This bot should ignore redirects, right? simple:un (a redirect) was removed from the interwikis at un by another bot and added again by Interwicket. This might cause edit wars between you two. -- 19:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, a number of wikts have policy to link to redirects. The "python wikipedia" module is way out of date on sort orders and other policies, and cannot be used in mainspace on the wikts. Note that "CarsracBot" has been blocked for not following policies, and not being approved here. Robert Ullmann 23:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Some pages on pt.wikt not being added interwikis[edit]

Hi, Robert.

A question: why doesn't Interwicket add interwikis to the page pt:vaen? My guess is that it's because it was created by a bot. How does Interwicket detect that interwikis are to be added? Thanks, Malafaya 21:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Interwicket finds needed links two ways (1) by monitoring recent changes, looking for new pages not created by bots, and (2) scanning the complete iwiki (language links) database table for each wikt once a week. The scan does pick up bot additions, as well as deletions and anything missed in rc (for various reasons).
The purpose is to give priority to human entries: they will get iwikis added within a few hours, while the bot entries are queued to be done at a lower priority. You can see the scan times at User:Interwicket/FL status. pt.wikt was last done 3 May, will be scanned again in the next 18 hours or so. (click on the sort for the "as of" column to see the work queue in order) Robert Ullmann 01:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. The above page was since then edited by humans and I was wondering why it wasn't updated after 2 days. Thanks again. Malafaya 11:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I did a little work to improve the way it was reading RC, removing some redundancy. As well, I had it pick up bot entries and queue them at an intermediate priority, so it should be more responsive. A lot of bot edits may still take many hours to get done, but won't have to wait 0-7 days before being queued up. Robert Ullmann 16:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't really understand the order Interwicket processes articles. It seems to have processed bot-generated pages created today, but the one I mentioned above, created 4 days ago is still untouched. Malafaya 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Partly that's just because I changed things. (;-) The priority is rc (human), then rc (bot), then the index scan; but also it randomizes the queue so it doesn't get stuck on something (like a huge bunch of changes in one wikt slowing down everything). At the moment it has 5802 tasks (titles) queued, and it will take a day or two to run that down, while other things will get added. The changes I made are why it is now doing your bot entries from today, but will catch up on the others later. In future, the bot edits will be picked up immediately, and run more quickly, waiting only on human entries. (does that make sense? ;-) Robert Ullmann 22:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that makes some sense unless processing human entries is not quick enough to process all of them in real-time :-). Anyway, don't tune it to my taste; I'm just trying to understand how it works! ;-) Best, Malafaya 00:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Other people have asked the same or similar question. And I always like (constructive) input. I rewrote just a bit of the code that reads RC. The thing I had noted is that frequently Interwicket would sit idle for a time when there were plenty of tasks to do, it just hadn't gotten to the schedule time for the wikt that had a number of new bot entries. The effect of the changes is:

  • RC reads read fewer records, in most cases not reading them redundantly. This reduces server load, but only a very small amount, as the number of API requests and the number of db SELECTs remains the same.
  • RC is read in the opposite direction (towards newer), and entries are not missed if there is a small flood of new entries.
  • Bot edits (which include users named "" even if not flagged) are read from RC, and queued with a priority in between human entries and tasks found during the weekly index scan.

This helps with observed response time for bot entries, as well as levelling the server load somewhat. Responsiveness to human entries found in RC should be essentially identical, although with large amounts of work queued it might be somewhat reduced. I doubt that effect will be noticeable. Robert Ullmann 13:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just my impression but it seems to run at a faster pace: the pauses between edits are shorter. Malafaya 01:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Interwicket restores deleted entries[edit]

Hello, the bot has restored an entry which was almost simultaneously deleted, due to vandalism. Could it check for modifications before writing the page? Thanks and greetings. --es:Usuario:Juan renombrado (Spanish Wiktionary)

It does; but there is still a race between picking up the current revision ID and writing the page, which then gets re-created if it was deleted in the short interval. This can happen with an ordinary user edit (and is more likely, as that can take longer), when the user saves the edit it re-creates the page instead of giving an "edit conflict" with the delete.
Should be a very rare occurrence, but has been noted a few times. And will not recur when you re-delete the entry.
There is apparently a way to prevent this with API writes, but the "framework" doesn't provide access to it; I really ought to re-write the procedure. (Which then will require very careful testing ...) Robert Ullmann 08:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. Thank you again. --Juan renombrado 09:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Links to redirects in pt.wikt[edit]

Hi, Robert.

Could you please enable interwiki linking to redirects in pt.wiktionary? We didn't have an official vote or anything but informally we seem to agree. Thanks, Malafaya 14:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Will take a while to find all of them. Robert Ullmann 16:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No rush there. Thanks! Malafaya 22:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you also enable links to redirects in vo.wikt? Basically it's consensual cause I'm the only one there at this point :). Malafaya 19:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

case redirects[edit]

Is there a policy anywhere about linking to case redirects on non-English wiktionaries? Interwicket has just added a link from Paint to kn:Paint. However kn:Paint is just a redirect to kn:paint, which appears to be the equivalent of an unsquelched Conversion Script redirect here. Should we be linking to these? Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We do link to redirects for lots of cases. The various other wikts are removing the "conversion script" redirects over time. There aren't very many at all: most wikts were empty or nearly when it was run. So we get just a few of these. Robert Ullmann 13:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Flag on lbwiktionary[edit]

Hi. I just requested a local botflag for Interwicket on lbwiktionary -- Quentinv57 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


Interwicket has recently been given a bot flag at nn.wikt. --Harald Khan Ճ 19:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

french translation / traduction FR[edit]

Hi ! I thought you (I mean your Master and Lord) might be interrested in a translation of your message. Here it is.

Wiktionary interwiki 'bot[edit]

User "Interwicket" is the 'bot that adds interwiki (inter-language) links to entries. It is designed for the Wiktionaries. It is not the "wikipedia bot", it is much more efficient. It operates only in the main namespace (NS:0).

Here, user "Interwicket" will add links to all of the other wiktionaries when needed.

  • If user "Interwicket" is blocked here, it will not edit (of course)
  • If user "Interwicket" is given a bot flag here, it will add iwikis whenever needed

Otherwise it will operate in a test mode, doing only a very few edits, that can then be checked (by me, and by anyone else). Most of the possible updates will not be done because of this limit.

Discussion page for Interwicket is en:User talk:Interwicket.

Code is at en:User:Interwicket/code.

Status, number of edits, etc for each wikt at en:User:Interwicket/FL status.

My talk page is en:User talk:Robert Ullmann.

Finally, my sincere apologies for writing this message only in English!

en français / in french :[edit]

Wiktionary interwiki ' bot

L'utilisateur "Interwicket" (littéralement, Interguichet) est le 'bot qui ajoute des liaisons interwiki (inter-langues) aux articles. Il est conçu pour les Wiktionaries. Ce n'est pas le "wikipedia bot", c'est beaucoup plus efficace. Il opère seulement dans le namespace principal (NS:0).

Ici (dans ce Wiktionarie), l'utilisateur "Interwicket" ajoutera des liaisons à tout les autres wiktionaries autant que nécessaire.

  • Si l'utilisateur "Interwicket" est bloqué ici, il n'éditera pas (bien sûr)
  • Si on donne à l'utilisateur "Interwicket" un statut de bot ici, il ajoutera des liaisons interwiki autant que nécessaire.

Autrement il fonctionnera dans un mode de test, faisant seulement quelques éditions, qui peuvent alors être vérifiées (par moi, et n'importe qui d'autre). La plupart des mises à jour possibles ne seront pas faites à cause de cette limite.

La page de discussion pour l'Interguichet est en:User talk:Interwicket.

Le code est à en:User:Interwicket/code.

Le statut, le nombre d'édit, etc pour chaque wikt est disponible à en:User:Interwicket/FL.

Ma page de conversation est en:User talk:Robert Ullmann.

Finalement, mes excuses sincères pour écrire ceci uniquement en anglais. (Mais c'est maintenant traduit / It's now translated)

...Few more question :[edit]

Your text is not always clear on the aim and way to work :

  • When you say "Here...", it means "In this Wictionarie" ? This is what I supposed, and added in the transalation. ( see " Ici (dans ce Wiktionarie), l'utilisateur "Interwicket"... ")
  • could you explain in your text "Most of the possible updates will not be done because of this limit." It's not quite understandable. You may mean "It will wait for having a 'bot flag for doing is job, not doing by the way (possible) useful edit for the community". (in french) "Il attendra d'avoir le statut de 'bot pour faire son travail, ne réalisant pas d'éditions (potentiellement) utiles pour la communauté". you might add it to your text if it please you.

Hoping it might help...

Hellotheworld 08:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

interwiki order on pl-wikt[edit]

Hi! On pl-wikt sorting based on local language by first word is in use, and Interwicket uses just sorting based on local language. Sometimes there is even a kind of edit war between Interwicket and SK script popular there: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Is it possible to change it? Olaf 23:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for delay, I have been ill. I have changed it now. Are you quite sure? This was very carefully checked two years ago. Has it changed since? Cheers, Robert Ullmann 19:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, if it has changed since 2008, but definitely there is sorting by first word included in the SK script, heavily used on pl-wikt, and definitely it was different from Interwicket sorting which caused edit wars between them. As far as I know, there were no official approval of any of the two systems in a vote, or something. Thank you very much. Olaf 15:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi ! I am a bot operator on several wikis (fr:user:ChuispastonBot), and I would like to use your script for wiktionaries (fr). So, I would like to know if it is available under a subversion version (like, which would allow other editors to use it with the last version. Or copying your files will be sufficient ? Thanks ! Grimlock 16:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! The Interwicket code is designed to operate as a single task on a support server, and do all of the needed edits in the wikts. It isn't like the 'pedia links that need a number of operators. (Outside NS:0, it is like the 'pedia links, and the framework code is fine.) fr.wikt will be updated completely by Interwicket.
Except: at the moment the server has been compromised, and we are working to clean it up, so it isn't running. (sadly) Will be back soon. Robert Ullmann 19:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"sort alpha by language name"[edit]

Hi, Robert.

In User:Interwicket/FL_status, when you say a wikt uses "sort alpha by language name" (I am especially concerned about da.wikt), is it the same as for en.wikt? In my discussion page there, a user alerted me to the fact that the Pywikipedia framework interwiki sort order is different that Interwicket's. I would like to fix that and thus would like to know if it suffices to make da.wikt's sort order the same as en.wikt's. Thank you and best regards, Malafaya 13:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Tickets requesting updates to the framework code have been essentially ignored. Two of them had no action and were closed unfixed a year later. I believe that all of the differences are where Interwicket has been updated by request and the corresponding framework request received no attention or action.
It isn't necessary for da.wikt to be the same as en.wikt; various orders are supported (by Interwicket); the question might be if da.wikt wanted to change. Then it should be a framework change request as well, but don't expect any action :-(
Robert Ullmann 19:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, having read your discussion page; I understand you've fixed the framework to use sort alpha by language; it should now be doing the same thing as Interwicket. Cheers, Robert Ullmann 19:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the point was actually me fixing/updating it :) (not that I'm a Pywikipedia dev...). My doubt was if Interwicket's "alpha order" at da.wikt is the same as en.wikt's. So I realize it is. Thanks, Malafaya 23:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I just found the ticket you mentioned above. Actually, it was closed automatically by the ticketing system at SourceForge because you didn't reply within 2 weeks, not by devs. Something I just learned too :). Regarding ms.wikt, is the sort order they wish to use still "alpha_revised"? This should be the same as their Wikipedia, right? Malafaya 23:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Malfunctioning Interwicket[edit]


My name is Robert and I'm an administrator at the Romanian Wiktionary project.

I've noticed that the Interwicket bot hasn't been working at all for the last few days. Is it down for repair or is it not working only in the Romanian Wiktionary?

Best Regards,

--Robbie SWE 12:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert has been inactive for a few weeks now. I've tried to send him a Facebook message, perhaps an email would be better. I'm not sure if Tbot and AutoFormat are running, either. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at the topic "Interwicket" above (two topics above). Malafaya 18:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Malafaya! I'll have to stick it out! --Robbie SWE 18:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

--Anuragr Can you tell me a bit more about the ne:<TAG> (and others)? I noticed it inserted in many of my page creations for Sanskrit words and was wondering if I can save you some of that effort.

Interwicket down again[edit]

It seems that Interwicket stopped functioning again on the 8th of november 2010. Any hope that is can be revived again? Jcwf 19:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. As Interwicket was the only interwiki bot for Wiktionaries (or almost the only one), I allow myself to repeat Jcwf's request. Thanks by advance. -- Quentinv57 17:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Last we heard, Robert Ullman the bot's creator was unwell. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


I would like to use ghalyBot to do some test edits using interwicket, I run it on python and it is a global bot. Would you mind guiding me in this process, please? Many thanks for your time. --Ghaly (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)