User talk:DomBot/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

The word bot is not allowed in usernames unless the entity is a registered bot. Please change your name. pschemp | talk 00:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to register as a bot. My regular user ID is User:Chidom, if you check out my talk page there, you will see a discussion about this. I'm just having a dificult time doing it.!—DomBot talk 00:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

When your bot is regeistered, let me know, point out the link that shows it and I'll unblock. In the meantime, please make it clear that this will be a bot account. A note that this is a userpage up there means its a person, not a bot so you might want to remove that. Also, you need to make it clear both on the talk and the userpage who the owner of the bot account is and specify that this is not just a user. pschemp | talk 01:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Geesh, this user was trying to help and keeps getting smacked in the face for it. Many bot accounts were created before formal approval as they were clearly indicated as bots and end up on request for approvals after a bit of testing. Running major or controversial bot actions on an unapproved bot would warrant a block, but not simply creating the account. WP:Username does not say that the accounts have to be blocked just for saying "bot", thats only for when it is unclear whether or not it is actually a bot account. Given the context we have here, there is not that uncertainty. Also, by keeping his edit rate down, it is no different than any other low edit rate AWB use for minor edits.Voice-of-All 05:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
VOA, this account was not marked as a bot at all when I first blocked it so back off. It wasn't clear at the time if it was a bot, and it wasn't indicated ANYWHERE that it was a bot. I'm just being cautious and certainly was polite and said it would be unblocked. No one was smacked in the face for anything and I resent your interpretation. Take a look at the userpage when I blocked. It didn't even indicate who the account belonged to. pschemp | talk 05:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
An initial block from the NU log would have been justified, however he did give a response that should have been reason enough to unblock. Chidom's talk page should have clearfied things. The user was already blocked for editing to fast, then for making a separate account for that and then told to "register" it, which wasn't explained (or linked to) at the time. I'd rather we try to less needlessly harsh to newer users that are just trying to help. I suppose this is mainly just a case of a user being at the wrong place at the wrong time.Voice-of-All 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If I may chime in, I'm not upset about all this, so no harm, no foul. This stuff happens, I think everyone involved has acted in good faith.—Chidom talk  06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your edit to Category:Evolutionary Philosophy

Your recent edit to Category:Evolutionary Philosophy (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 21:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CFD

Replied on operator talk:here. — xaosflux Talk 03:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikEd

The wikEdlogo

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Category:Mental-skill games

Your recent edit to Category:Mental-skill games (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Category:Neyshabur notables

Your recent edit to Category:Neyshabur notables (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 07:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Category:Paris metro

Your recent edit to Category:Paris metro (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 08:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re ...Empty first, then delete

Hi DomBot/Chidom,

In this edit to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working, you added several categories from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 29 to the "Ready for deletion" section instead of the "Empty then delete" subsection. Easy mistake to make; the headings don't appear to be all that different between sections and subsections...

Oops, yes; thanks for spotting. Guess I'm starting to wane... Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't wane: "wax on, wax off!" (If that went sailing over your head, the moon waxes and wanes; the quote is a line from The Karate Kid.) Don't think that 'bots are immune from these sorts of errors, by the way. Since closing the discussions and executing the results tend to be thankless (but important) tasks, please know your efforts are appreciated!—DomBot talk ; Chidom talk, owner/operator. 04:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Locke (Lost)

Hi, DomBot. You moved John Locke (Lost) to John Locke (actor). The article is about the character, not the actor who portrays him (Terry O'Quinn). As a matter of fact, Terry O'Quinn has had a number of other roles, listed at Terry O'Quinn#Filmography. This would have been readily apparent if you read the article you moved. Please be more careful in future. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I hope reverting the move wasn't a huge hassle. I should have been more careful, and will definitely be more attentive in the future. I've also asked that John Locke (actor) be deleted; one never knows when that article title may actually be needed, and it bears no relation to the show at all. Again, my apologies, and thanks. —DomBot talk ; Chidom talk, owner/operator. 06:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem — it was easily fixed, and my comment above sounds grumpier than it ought to. It's not really a big deal. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fix your mess in removing properly added sort keys

In this edit you deleted [[Category:Departments of France|Cotes-d'Armor]] from Côtes-d'Armor with this edit summary: "Delete renamed category that was individually added to article instead of via the template using AWB"

Will you please go back and add that back in properly. That wasn't the deleted category; the earlier bot had properly renamed by the earlier bot.

The problem is, of course, that there is a damn good reason why that category was individually added to the article, in addition to being added by a template.

That reason is the fact that these nasty templates which add categories to articles only use default sorting based on the article's name. As you can see from the sort key quoted above, the manual addition of this category to the article in addition to the template addition of the category was done to add the indexing sort key so that the article will be properly sorted within that category.

I don't appreciate bots run amok. Go back and fix it, not just in the one I pointed out which I have already reverted, but in all similar cases. Gene Nygaard 05:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for not knowing why the category was added to the page in two different ways. My edits were due to my knowing that most people don't understand that a template can and does add an article to a category. I thought that was the case here; I was mistaken and will correct my errors.
(For an example of where what I did was correct, see Loiret.)
I obviously didn't notice that the sorting key was different than the article title; had I done so, I wouldn't have made the changes.
Given the frequency with which diacritics occur in French, perhaps the category shouldn't be added by the template at all. The template can very easily be edited so that it doesn't automatically include the article in the category; that's something that needs to be discussed on the template's talk page.
Finally, I would really appreciate it if you would try to be more civil in your future communications. The first two paragraphs above were quite different than the ones that followed. I didn't create the "nasty template", my bot wasn't running "amok", and suddenly your request to "please go back" turned into demanding that I "Go back and fix it".
I'll do the right thing here, but I have to say that your communication really makes me "disinclined to acquiesce to your request". (If you didn't see Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, that's probably lost on you; it's intended to be humorous.)
Have good days. Thanks.—DomBot talk ; Chidom talk, owner/operator. 08:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I've just finished making the corrections. Let me clue you in on how "amok" this was:
Yesterday, I made the deletion to nine articles and ten categories.
I reverted the deletion on nine of the categories yesterday; immediately after my earlier deletions
I needed to fix four articles today (it would have been five without your help on the one article) and one category
For the other five articles, one of two things was true:
it was appropriate to remove the category, as it didn't have (nor need) a sort key; or
the category was never removed because it wasn't there to begin with; the bot made a cleanup edit under the same edit summary
Today I reverted one category and four articles
I also added the category with a sort key to the Puy-de-Dôme article; it wasn't there before and I didn't remove it (it was another of those that my bot made a clean-up correction, it changed "category:Puy-de-Dôme" to "Category:Puy-de-Dôme"). Consider that a "freebie".
In sum, five erroneous edits is not a bot running "amok", and it's not all that much of a "mess", either.
If you hate bots so much and would like to do all these clean-up and maintenance edits by hand instead of having those of us with bots do it, be my guest. This is a thankless task and it's quite disheartening to have someone making such an angry post over what turns out to be a fairly minor error that was easily corrected.
Thanks.—DomBot talk ; Chidom talk, owner/operator. 09:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If that was indeed the first category in which you had done that, then it looks like I caught you just in time. That was a pretty significant amount you had to redo there. At least now you know for the future.
Another thing I don't like about bots is your "freebie" change. If all you are going to do is make a change that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, don't make it. Don't clutter up the watchlists and so forth needlessly. Capitalize the initial C in category if you are making some other change, not just to change that as the only change. Gene Nygaard 14:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Gee, thanks for the abject apology for the way you spoke to me earlier. I guess you don't "do" apology very well (if at all), do you?
And don't go taking credit for catching me "just in time". It was an honest mistake and not one I've made in the past. I was tired and didn't see the difference, I usually have a much sharper eye (for instance, did you know that the first typo in the last Harry Potter book occurs on page 10?), and the reason for the addition would have made perfect sense if I had noticed the lack of diacriticals in the indexing on the additions.
As for the "freebie"; whether it "clutters up the watchlists" or not, the change needs to be made. The bots are programmed to look for things like that; again, I was working on more than 200 pages at the time. (The capitalization, it turns out, can make a difference in whether or not the page is found when searching the category. I know, because I ran across it. So it's a necessary change.) The "freebie" was to add the proper sort index to an article in the category, which is what you whined about to start with. You can't have it both ways.
Also, there is a page for Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser where you could voice concerns or suggest changes. But it's easier to pick on the individual user, I would think.
In perusing your talk page, I'm not the only person to voice concerns with the way you interact with other Wikipedians. (I believe I saw the term "bully", which fits.) Did it ever occur to you to try and change your behavior? Or are we all always wrong, about your behavior as well as the things you slam us for? It would seem that you're the Wikipedian who is always right. Not possible.—DomBot talk ; Chidom talk, owner/operator. 04:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you ought to read Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of Use before you use it any more:
  • Avoid making insignificant minor edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists.
Gene Nygaard 11:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We have a difference of opinion on what is a "trivial" edit. Since capitalization mattered in naming categories until I brought it up on the AWB discussion page and it was fixed, it wasn't "trivial". As I have said, if you have such an objection to bots, you have a couple of options: do all the maintenance-related revisions yourself; or talk about what's wrong and suggest changes at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I do not appreciate your attitude and the way that you have communicated with me. Clean up your own mess in terms of how you communicate with others and bring it in line with Wikipedia:Civility. I am perfectly willing to calmly discuss errors I have made; I am not willing to be the whipping boy for every problem you find with bots in general, nor to be treated with scorn and disdain. I'm attempting to make positive contributions here. Keep that in mind before you start chastising me so harshly for mistakes made in the process of those attempts. Thanks.—Chidom talk  00:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A noticeboard post

Hi - take a look here: WP:AN#DomBot. Just leaving a message on this talk page in case you come to the computer an it's still logged on to this account. Martinp23 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I wouldn't have known about this otherwise. Have good days.—DomBot talk ; Chidom talk, owner/operator. 07:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: List of stadiums by turf type

An editor has nominated the article List of stadiums by turf type for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stadiums by turf type. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article List of stadiums by turf type during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 15:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of Batman love interests

An editor has nominated List of Batman love interests, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Batman love interests and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 12:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a automated to all bot operators

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated message to bot owners

As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:

Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.

Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 00:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 04:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/m/User_talk%7EDomBot_Archive_1_ecd6.html"