User talk:Whobot/Archive

August 2005

Regarding this edit.. if this user is a bot as the name suggests, then something seems to be broken, otherwise: Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! --Mysidia (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I appologize for that. I was attempting to change the bot code not to use the {{Interwiki-category-check}} for now. I ran it on the one article to make sure it wouldn't mess up, as such I immediately fixed the article and the error. Thanks. ∞Who ?¿? 01:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 2005

This is not a huge deal, but in at least one instance (http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=U.S._Cellular&diff=prev&oldid=24049529), Whobot has moved a stub tag under the list of categories. I may be mistaken, but I had thought that we did things the other way around. NatusRoma 04:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the idea is that when showing the categories, the stub cat is listed after the encyclopedic cats. It is really personal preference, but this is the way that I do it along with Pearle (the bot Whobot is cloned from). ∞Who ?¿? 04:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 2005

I don't really understand what this bot does, and frankly I don't care much, except that it is exceedingly irritating for those of us who write content to have it mangled by ignorant automata. Recently your bot changed a category for Anchor Exchange from 'Places of interest in Birmingham' to 'Visitor attractions in Birmingham', despite the fact that Anchor exchange could not be considered by any stretch of the imagination a 'visitor attraction'. Those of us who watch the page and know about the subject could have pointed this out, but for the fact that we had no way of knowing about the impending category change. The first I heard of it is when the page was modified after the period for discusion had closed. It would be much more useful if your bot could put a warning on the page at the beginning of the period of discussion and not just at the end of it. Spliced 11:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First I would like to ask you to please visit WP:CIVIL. Secondly, each category is tagged with a similiar tag of {{cfd}}, my bot would not move categories that were not tagged with such. As the one who deleted the category, I know for a fact that it was so tagged. Bots, specifically Whobot, run automated tasks based solely off of discussions closed on WP:CFD, I appologize for you not being able to make the discussion in time, however, this does not give you the right to unilatterly change decisions that the community has already decided on. All this bot does is move articles from one category to another, among related tasks, it is not a human and mis-categorization is not an issue with CFD or the bot. If you feel articles are not categorized properly, before or after a CFD change, Be bold! and make the change, but do not blame other users for changes that you have a problem with. We all work together to make this project better, and this is what my bot helps with, moving the hundreds of thousands of articles that the majority of users have no interest in doing. I invite you to also join us in CFD, occasionally, and assist in the discussions and re-categorizations for the better of Wikipedia. Thank you. ∞Who ?¿? 13:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was (and still am) a little terse, but it's bad enough having content butchered by fools. Having bots do it too is the last straw. It isn't sufficient for the category to be tagged. If the category is to be changed, then every article within that category needs to carry a warning too, otherwise the articles' page-watchers, who form the best-informed part of the community in relation to these articles, won't see it. Most wikipedians are interested in writing *content*, not second-guessing people who faff about with meta-stuff like categories. IMHO, "Be Bold!" is really bad advice. "Be careful!" and "Be accurate!" would be wiser recommendations. Still, don't worry, I'm sufficiently pissed off that I won't be bothering wikipedia with my presence for the forseeable future. Bye! Spliced 14:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is near impossible to tag the 1000's of articles listed in categories as they are nominated for change. If you wish to watch certain categories, or participate more on WP:CFD or Cfd talk, then you maybe further informed. ∞Who ?¿? 03:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

house of anjou

where can one find any mention of moving "House of Plantagenet" to "House of Anjou"?

The "whobot" is busy switching people from the "House of Plantagenet" category to a "House of Anjou" category, referencing the categories for deletion page. Yet I cannot find any discussion of this rather peculiar choice there. Where can one find any mention of moving "House of Plantagenet" to "House of Anjou"? Did it occur to no one that "House of Plantagenet" is a subset of the First "House of Anjou" and that Plantagenet kings are usually referred to as Plantagenets, or, if referencing their connection to France, an "Angevin Dynasty"? We shouldn't be needlessly confusing, and we should use the more specific category. - Nunh-huh 23:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I appologize I did not see this message sooner, as you may have seen, User:Splash responded on both my talk page and Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion. ∞Who ?¿? 04:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haxed

I think you should make this an anti vandal bot ;-) R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, having enough trouble getting Meta to mark any enwiki bots with flags at the moment. :) I may add some functionality to it, talk to Curps and see what they are using, perl or python. ∞Who ?¿? 01:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Category:Basque symbols?

I find that Basque symbols has been moved to Category:Basque cultural icons with a note by User:Whobot of Cleanup per WP:CFD (moving Category:Basque_symbols to Category:Basque_cultural_icons)) but I don't find anything about it in 2005-08-03. --Error 00:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I manually add the date to the list the bot runs, It should have been 1 Oct. Here is the cfd log. ∞Who ?¿? 00:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 2005

If you are going to change the names of categories on my user page, please put the new categories back in the same order that you found the old ones in. Thanks, -Arctic.gnome 06:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsorted

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)} 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 05:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts

Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:British professional bodies

Category:British professional bodies, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hypergiant stars

Category:Hypergiant stars, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies

Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]