| Revision as of 16:46, 2 April 2007 editNixeagle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users32,737 edits Admin bots← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:46, 2 April 2007 edit undoNixeagle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users32,737 edits →Admin bots: noteNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| == Admin bots == | == Admin bots == | ||
| I just wanted to comment on your post to betacommand's ARBCOM case. Last time we had an admin bot up for RFA it almost passed, and I think it would have passed had Werdna not made the mediawiki improvement. The key concerns I saw on that RFA were, one the fact the bot was closed source, and two, it was not made clear on any additional tasks that the bot would run. Should it be one adminbot per task, or multiple tasks to the one bot that gets approved. Personally I would prefer the former rather then the later, but I do think that the community will accept a properly done adminbot. Just make it open source (nobody but sysops can run it anyway), and promise that you will go back again for a new tasking. But again based on that RFA, adminbots should be able to pass it if they are done right. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | I just wanted to comment on your post to betacommand's ARBCOM case. Last time we had an admin bot up for RFA it almost passed, and I think it would have passed had Werdna not made the mediawiki improvement. The key concerns I saw on that RFA were, one the fact the bot was closed source, and two, it was not made clear on any additional tasks that the bot would run. Should it be one adminbot per task, or multiple tasks to the one bot that gets approved. Personally I would prefer the former rather then the later, but I do think that the community will accept a properly done adminbot. Just make it open source (nobody but sysops can run it anyway), and promise that you will go back again for a new tasking. But again based on that RFA, adminbots should be able to pass it if they are done right. (please comment on my talk) —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:46, 2 April 2007
Cyde's talk page Leave a new message
Archives
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
10
11
12
Can Cydebot help with a CFD close?
Hello Cyde. At WP:CFD/W there's a request to rename Category:Underpopulated Music categories to Category:Underpopulated music categories. The category comes from a {{popcat}} template. I could do it with AWB, but there are 200-odd subcategories to change and it would take a long time. All that's needed it to replace {{popcat|Underpopulated Music categories}} with {{popcat|Underpopulated music categories}}. Could Cydebot handle this? It would be a big help! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did this with AFB, but there are still some non-standard but probably bot-able CFD closes that Cydebot's help with would be much appreciated. We are looking to move templates from article pages to talk pages for "source" templates (Category:Great Soviet Encyclopedia, Category:Based on Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, etc). I know how to do this with AWB, but it would be a huge job. I suppose I could always ask for a bot flag, but I'm not so keen on that (if you have a bot, even it's only auto-AWB, people will come asking for stuff). Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Special picture
I have always been fascinated by the image of the Falkirk Wheel, but still, if you forget to put it back and leave the "special" one there for a few extra days, I won't mind. LOL --After Midnight 02:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Gerry Anderson
Hi Cyde,
Recently, Cydebot made a change that implemented Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 11#Category:Gerry Anderson.
If I am reading Radiant's statement correctly, he wanted the category moved to Category:Supermarionation. Instead, Cydebot moved the category to Category:Century 21 Productions.
--Kevinkor2 16:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No more sig categories?
Good idea. But since I invented mine before the rule was inserted, I want mine grandfathered in. :P --tjstrf talk 22:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism on Misplaced Pages:Introduction
About a year ago, Tawkerbot2 started monitoring Misplaced Pages:Introduction, and it did a great job of keeping the top two lines intact. See my original request explaining the requirements User talk:Tawker/Apr06#Vandalism on Misplaced Pages:Introduction
AntiVandalbot was at one time also monitoring this page, but now it is not. Can you have it start monitoring the page again? Or, if it is not too much trouble, extract out the code for a seperate bot to monitor this page (and possibly Misplaced Pages:Introduction 2 and Misplaced Pages:Introduction 3).
As a reminder the first two lines of Misplaced Pages:Introduction should be:
{{Please leave this line alone}}
<!-- Feel free to change the text below this line. No profanity, please. -->
Thx in adv --Trödel 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Admin bots
I just wanted to comment on your post to betacommand's ARBCOM case. Last time we had an admin bot up for RFA it almost passed, and I think it would have passed had Werdna not made the mediawiki improvement. The key concerns I saw on that RFA were, one the fact the bot was closed source, and two, it was not made clear on any additional tasks that the bot would run. Should it be one adminbot per task, or multiple tasks to the one bot that gets approved. Personally I would prefer the former rather then the later, but I do think that the community will accept a properly done adminbot. Just make it open source (nobody but sysops can run it anyway), and promise that you will go back again for a new tasking. But again based on that RFA, adminbots should be able to pass it if they are done right. (please comment on my talk) —— Eagle101 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)