User talk:EdoDodo/Archive 3

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — EdoDodo — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Home Talk Archives Guestbook Articles Contribs Awards Editcount

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Goodbye

I have a lot on my plate right now, so I'm retiring from Wikipedia until my plate is clean. I may return next summer, but I might not. Until that possible date, goodbye. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Farewell, I wish you all the best with your real life, and I certainly hope you'll be back next summer :). You'll be missed. - EdoDodo ^talk 00:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DodoBot

Hi, we over at the Military History WikiProject have garnered consensus to use your bot on our pages. Thanks! WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 22:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

For what task? Automatic assessment of short (below 2500 bytes) articles as stubs? - EdoDodo ^talk 23:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The second and fourth as listed on the bot's page. ('Automatically assessing articles as stub (based on length and stub tags)' and 'Filling in class and B-class checklists from other WikiProjects') WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 23:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Got it, will run it tomorrow or later next week. - EdoDodo ^talk 00:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... - EdoDodo ^talk 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Whoa, the bot severely malfunctioned and removed the template from a bunch of pages. I rolled it back, but the bot is temporarily stopped until I can figure out what went wrong, sort it out, and do a lot more testing. Sorry! - EdoDodo ^talk 17:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Spam?

What's with the spam? BTW, it would be handy to add a talk link to the "signature", e.g. "Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Example (talk) at 16:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)." Anomie⚔ 16:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call it spam. I sent it to all the approved users to inform them, and make sure that they were aware of how the new field works. Since you havn't been using the bot (I just gave you access for testing, if I recall correctly), would you like to removed from list of users? Anyway, I've added a talk link to the signature, thanks for the suggestion :). - EdoDodo ^talk 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and remove me. Anomie⚔ 22:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done. - EdoDodo ^talk 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Account creation

Hi, i'm interested in becoming an account creator and have some questions about it. First i'll tell you about my stats on wikipedia. Im registered from 2007, have over 2,600 edits, never blocked, and am a reviewer and rollbacker. OK, now the question's

1. Am I qualified enough to become an account creator.
2. Is the account creator interface a program that you download
3. How do I get the user right.

Thanks for your time and don't bother leaving a talkback on my page as I am watching this page. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I am not an admin at the account creator interface, so I'm no expert in approving users, but I think you would stand quite a good chance if you applied. Do note that access to the account creation interface and the account creator user right are two completely different things. The account creation interface allows you to handle requests for an account, which can be done without the account creator user right. However, without it you cannot create more than 6 accounts a day, so if you regularly hit the limit you can request the right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator so that you can complete more requests. The interface itself isn't a program which you download, it's a website in which people request accounts and then approved users create the accounts for them. If you would be interested in applying for the account creation interface I suggest you read the guide and then apply here, Don't feel discouraged if you don't get approved by the way, we have no backlog, and new requests get reserved in literally seconds from when they arrive, so we don't really need very many new users. - EdoDodo ^talk 12:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have hit a problem on my first request, the requested username is the same as some museum. What action should I take? Im going to break the request and let someone else finish it. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 09:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If the username is similar to that of a company or organization, then that is a violation of the username policy and should be closed as 'U policy' which means violation of the username policy. In future, if you are unsure about a request, please break the reservation as you said you would, don't click any of the brown links which will mark the request as done and send an email to the requester. Once again I would like to encourage you to join our IRC channel, which is a great place to get help on your first few requests. - EdoDodo ^talk 12:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and I have a question about the IRC channel. When I click the link to it, it shows "The webpage cannot be displayed" straight away without even loading, do you know what's wrong? Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! IRC links are meant to be opened with an IRC Client, there's plenty of free ones available to download, I suggest you take a look at Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients or search the web. If you do not wish to install a separate client software, then it is also possible to access the chatroom from a web page here. - EdoDodo ^talk 08:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

October drive

Sorry, guys. The wikification drive has been bumped to October. You might have noticed already, however. I'm amazed how many people came on as soon as I sent out the invite. With a few more, we can easily meet our goal. Just remember. Concentrate your firepower on the 2008 articles, and you should have no problems. Great work! Also, if you have time, please also invite other users to participate. Thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 21:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC).

Prod of Morgantown Mall

Hi,

I removed the prod tag you placed on Morgantown Mall because articles that have previously had an AfD discussion are not eligible for deletion by prod. However, if you think that the article doesn't address the concerns that caused it to be deleted in the previous AfD, it may be eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G4. Otherwise, if you still think that the article should be deleted, you would need to start a new AfD discussion for it. Calathan (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! Apologies for my mistake, I wasn't aware of this. I'll tag it for speedy deletion under G4, but since I don't have access to the deleted revisions, I can't tell whether the article has changed significantly since the AfD. If the speedy is declined then I'll be happy to discuss it at AfD. - EdoDodo ^talk 20:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Dodo, I was wondering if I could be listed as an Approved User for MDB? Thanks, Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! Sure thing, I've added you. - EdoDodo ^talk 08:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 10:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of retirement

I thought I would let you know that I've decided to return to Wikipedia, only in a semi-retired state instead of completely retired. Life has somewhat settled down for me, and since I'm ditching pre-calculus I'll have a little more free time on my hands. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 01:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, cool :). Welcome back. - EdoDodo ^talk 05:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Business and economics

• Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Business and economics

This may be delisted soon. You may wish to comment at the discussion page, and/or help to improve the portal. -- Cirt (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. - EdoDodo ^talk 05:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Invalid interwiki added by EdoBot

This change to Aleena was invalid, and I have reverted it. Aleena is a disambiguation page, and any interwikis added to it should be to other disambiguation pages. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The bot picked up the interwiki from the sv.wikipedia article, which the English article linked to. I've removed the interwiki from that article, so future bots won't pick it up again. Thanks for letting me know! - EdoDodo ^talk 21:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome -- happy editing! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag bot on fr.wp

I have just given your bot its flag on fr.wp. Regards, Esprit Fugace (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - EdoDodo ^talk 05:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

EdoBot

What is the value of this edit or this edit? I'm reverting the changes until some explanation can be provided. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, forget that, I've figured out that it's deleting interwikis for articles that haven't been created yet. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, both of those were interwikis to inexistent pages. - EdoDodo ^talk 06:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

EdoBot on Wikispecies

Got a question at species:Wikispecies:Bots/Requests for approval/EdoBot. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Seen and replied. - EdoDodo ^talk 06:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will wait for good news from you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

WikiProject tagging

How's your WikiProject tagging bot going? I was wondering if you could offer some relief for Xenobot Mk V who is on a beach in the Bahamas =] –xeno^talk 14:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm sorry, but I haven't really been running my WikiProject tagging bot much lately. I'm already quite busy with school starting and my other bots to take care of, so I really don't have much time for WikiProject tagging. If I have a bit of time this weekend I'll try running one of the tasks, though. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. It's just the WP:RUN task which is super-overdue =) –xeno^talk 17:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if I have time I'll 'run' it this weekend. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite your awful pun ;> , you deserve this -

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For picking up my slack and 'running' with one of the tagging requests left for Xenobot, please accept this as a small token of my appreciation. Keep up the great bot work! –xenotalk 15:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - EdoDodo ^talk 15:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagging

Your bot tagged an article I created as being a stub. I guess I took offense to that. I have expanded the CIF California State Meet article today. Please revisit your categorization. Trackinfo (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm sorry, that was actually a malfunction of sorts. Since the other project had assessed it as start-class the bot should have picked up the rating from there, instead of using a length-based stub rating. I've changed it to start, apologies once again. Error is now fixed (it was because the bot was searching for 'Start' with a capital letter, and not 'start' without a capital letter, which is what the other project was using). By the way, if it ever happens again, feel free to change the rating yourself. Bot ratings are really just a bit of a guess, and a human should always feel free to replace them. - EdoDodo ^talk 07:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been editing here for years, I'm approaching 6,000 edits and have been a member of several of these Olympic, Track and Field, Running oriented projects for some time. I have no clue what this tagging and classification has to do with anything, other than it makes a decent article look bad. Some articles don't have much to say, others don't have much information available. Here on WP, if you don't source your content, others will criticize it. Hell, even if you diligently DO source somethings they will get criticized--I guess that comes with the public scrutiny nature of this project. The point being, there are legions of wikideletionists out there ready to delete an article at the slightest sign of weakness. If they are so eager to trim articles, article SIZE shouldn't be an issue. Your bot that grades articles on such a basis is really just a mildly bothersome tool. Since you like to write bots, I'm sure I could come up with some better use of your bot time to more effectively aid in the look of the project. Trackinfo (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to accept my apologies for this. This task was supposed to be run by Xenobot, but I've been busy. I didn't clearly communicate that the WP:RUN project doesn't use length-based auto-assessment. But EdoDodo is right above: if a bot's assessment is clearly wrong, feel free to change it. Although in this case, it was an error in coding, suggesting that running autoassessment bots is not a good use of time is a little unfair; especially since the projects request these types of assessments be done. –xeno^talk 19:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm, just double checked WP:RUN's instructions and auto=length isn't one of them. Length-based tagging is kind of a new bird. –xeno^talk 19:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is still at work. I have seen a bunch of length-based tags to other articles inserted in the last hour or two. These are unnecessary or compounding insults to these articles. Trackinfo (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it hasn't edited since 18:50. It only added a handful of length-based autoassessements. And they shouldn't be taken as insult in the first instance. –xeno^talk 20:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the incorrect taggings. I saw that 'auto-stub' was enabled at User:Xenobot/R#WP:RUN and figured that that included length based assessment. Bot only did a bit over a dozen length based assessments, I'll check them all manually tomorrow. I'm sorry that you took it as an insult. I have restarted the bot without the length based tagging. - EdoDodo ^talk 21:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've lumped your minor assessment tags in with other more destructive tags. To your benefit, they are on the talk pages and are relatively hidden from the general public. There are much worse tags inserted into and on the top of far too many articles. My most recent pet peeve, not of your doing, are "Citation needed" tags inserted into article ledes--as if the following number of paragraphs that clarify the details of the general statement of a lede, are missing. Those are a defacement. They make the article look bad. Essentially tags are just one person's opinion, or in your case a robotic execution of your opinion's definition of what constitutes a decent article. Yet they look like they are from the wikipolice, expecting enforcement or conformity to whatever standard is professed. The fact that it is based merely on size is the most superficial judgement of all. And OK, that is MY opinion.

As expressed above, I don't see a use for them. Our project just received the honor (I think its an honor, but who knows how this works? I don't see a logical pattern to the selected articles) of having this list of articles selected as positive examples for inclusion into Wikipedia 0.8 (whatever that is). Looking at the list, 18 of those exemplary articles are rated Start class; only two achieve FL status; Carl Lewis has got three of these tags on the top of the article (OK, justifiably); and one article List of world records in athletics which I have personally been involved with, is one of the best maintained lists around--several of us in tune with the media of this sport update the page, frequently within minutes of a reportable event. And its just rated as a "List." I am left wondering, what more do you want? There is no discussion, just complaints . . . from a bot. Trackinfo (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason that some project like to have their articles tagged as stubs if they are short (it seems this isn't the case for WikiProject Running, just a bit of a miscomuncation), is that having an estimated rating from a bot is (in some WikiProject's opinion) better than having no rating at all. Articles that have been automatically assessed by a bot are clearly marked as such with a message on the WikiProject banner, and users are encouraged to change the bot's rating to a human one (correcting if necessary, or just removing the auto parameter). Ratings from a bot should not be taken as an offence, or as complaints. They are simply a guess as to what the article might be rated if it was looked at by a human - ideally all bot-assessed articles would be verified by humans.

Wikipedia 0.8 is an offline version of Wikipedia, articles selected for it are considered fairly important for an encyclopedia. The articles aren't necessarily highly rated (although it helps if they are), they are generally selected more based on what importance they have been assigned by other WikiProjects, and how many WikiProjects have tagged them as a rough guess of how important they are to an encyclopedia. All Lists are assessed as either 'List' or 'Featured list', we don't have the more detailed assessments we do for articles. I've seen plenty of lists that don't make FL but are still very good - List of world records in athletics is one of those. - EdoDodo ^talk 14:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. - EdoDodo ^talk 05:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ACC Toolserver

Heya Dodo, was wondering if you could review my request for access on the internal ACC mailing list, I was asked to rack up a few more contributions before resubmitting my request over email. Regards, Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 08:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry, but I am not an admin, so I cannot review any requests. You'll want to talk to one of the ACC admins. AlexandrDmitri and deliriousandlost are probably the most active ones. - EdoDodo ^talk 14:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks Dodo :) Also why does you sig have w: in it??? —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 21:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... Well I'd made a signature that could be used on all projects and then made it my signature on all the projects, the w: made all links point to my user page here, instead of the local user pages for the various projects. I've removed it from here, since it isn't necessary. Thanks for telling me! - EdoDodo ^talk 07:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 2:34pm • 04:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot

So... I was thinking of sending a message to around 150 users about Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Specifically, to the adopters listed here and ask them if they were still interested in the project, and if they were, to please update their status on the project page. So ya, if you have no problems with it, kindly approve it. Netalarm^talk 03:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait, I don't need approval :p Nice bot by the way! Netalarm^talk 03:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Error

Um...the bot seems to be stuck at User:The Earwig. There are just 12 users after him, but the bot apparently can't pull information from his user page. Netalarm^talk 04:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not quite sure what happened, occasionally when running in someone's browser from the 'Run bot' link, and doing long delivery runs, the bot seems to just stop halfway through. I am working on fixing the problem, but if it doesn't work then I'll have to disable the 'Run bot' feature and just leave it to run every hour. Anyways, I've completed that message run. Thanks for letting me know. - EdoDodo ^talk 05:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is fixed. The bot should now keep running regardless of what you do with the browser, and regardless of any timeouts/connection problems that may occur with your browser while the bot is running. - EdoDodo ^talk 07:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WelcomerBot

Hi, WelcomerBot is signing ACC some welcomes with "Paul E Middleton" instead of the account creator's username. I was wondering if this is supposed to happen, or a bug…--Joshua Issac (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's also making strange edit summaries. –xeno^talk 12:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that, that's why I fixed it and stopped the bot while waiting for somebody to make my changes live. - EdoDodo ^talk 13:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mostly fixed, and the bot is running now. - EdoDodo ^talk 05:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, completely working and running. - EdoDodo ^talk 07:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot account

Re [1]: Don't worry, I know the rules and I've no intention of using that account - it's just there in case I ever design a bot (when I'll go through bot approval). —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay :). Just wanted to make sure. - EdoDodo ^talk 20:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Question...

Hello, everytime I send a request for a message delivery, the MessageDeliveryBot has a connection issue on User talk:Recury. The connection issue causes the bot to duplicate the message. Do you know what may be causing this? Thanks and happy editing. Nascar1996 00:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, this is a known issue of Peachy that occurs when editing very large pages such as that one. I've disabled the bit of code that will attempt to send the message again if there was a connection error, so there should be no more duplicate posts – but you'll still get the message saying there was a connection error so you can check that the message way actually delivered. Hopefully the issue will be fixed soon. - EdoDodo ^talk 07:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the information. Happy editing. Nascar1996 22:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!

Get ready. The October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin. Prep your keyboards, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please get your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar ". Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month! Regards, Mono (talk · contribs) and WikiCopter (talk · contribs)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 05:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

The October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun!

Get going. The October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun. Please start wikifying, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please invite your friends to join up as well (anyone can join, even after the drive has begun). In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar code. Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month! All the instructions are on the drive page, so please begin logging your scores. Regards, Mono (talk · contribs) and WikiCopter (talk · contribs)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive at 03:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

About MDB

The bot won't run. I've tried to run the bot several times, and I can't quite seem to get it running. The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 01:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Looks like I introduced a syntax error in one of my recent changes that broke the bot. Working again now, and the newsletter is being delivered. - EdoDodo ^talk 07:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

BRfA for AusTerrapinBotEdits

G'day EdoDodo, I responded a couple of days ago to your concerns about the vagueness of my application at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AusTerrapinBotEdits. Does the update satisfy your concerns? Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the changes, the BRFA definitely is better now. However, I have been quite busy in real life lately, so I won't be able to review it. I'm afraid you'll have to wait for another BAG member to take a look at it. - EdoDodo ^talk 15:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

New task for Archivebot on TechEssentials

Hey EdoDodo,

I was wondering if having Archivebot archive the Request for Permissions page on TechEssentials in the same fashion KingpinBot does here on WP ? I don't know what's involved in programming this but if it's not a major undertaking and you have time it would be nice to have. Mlpearc powwow 16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It might be possible, however I am kind of busy at the moment. I'll look into it next week. - EdoDodo ^talk 20:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem EdoDodo, it's just a thought no rush. Mlpearc powwow 02:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/363

Two questions about this filter — (1) I'm an admin, but the page doesn't allow me to edit the filter; any idea why not? I wouldn't edit it if I could. (2) What about modifying it to prevent the TFA from being converted into a redirect to anything? I can't imagine why we'd ever want to convert TFA into a redirect. Talkback, please. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to Special:ListGroupRights administrators can view private filters (abusefilter-view-private) and revert changes to abuse filters (abusefilter-revert) but cannot actually modify abuse filters (abusefilter-modify). You can, however, assign yourself the edit filter manager right if you need to edit a filter. I do not think it would be possible to have a filter that specifically looks for changes to TFA since a filter has no way of knowing if an article is TFA or not. However, it would be possible to prevent changing of all featured articles into redirects (they all have {{Featured article}} on them, so the filter can check for that), but that should probably be discussed. - EdoDodo ^talk 20:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I know very little about edit filters, so I didn't know what could or couldn't be done with them; as well, I thought that filter editing was tied to adminship, like blocking and deleting are. I think I'll propose the filter to prevent featured articles from being converted into redirects. Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		[Also available as this ribbon.] For conceiving the new FA redirect filter. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I was awarded this barnstar for proposing the filter that you suggested. It was your idea, so surely you deserve it as well :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :). - EdoDodo ^talk 21:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

MessageDeliveryBot

This conversation was moved from User talk:MessageDeliveryBot (diff).

Disabling the bot, it should not be used to send out messages like this. NW (Talk) 21:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Further, it should not be used to instantly send out messages like this. There should be some sort of review process, before message get spammed everywhere. NW (Talk) 21:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a review process. Any approved user can review messages to have them sent out. Fridae'sDoom is part of that list, so he reviewed his own message to send it out. In future, if you have a problem with a message that was requested or reviewed by a specific user please add them to the blacklist so messages verified by them are no longer sent out. Would you have any objections to me re-enabling the bot? - EdoDodo ^talk 08:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, I've removed Fridae'sDoom from the list. - EdoDodo ^talk 08:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware that such messages weren't allowed, I was only doing what I thought was right. I understand if it seems like I'm canvassing for support but I'm not doing that, I just want the opinion of users since WT:UBX is not watched by many users. I didn't know my sending the messages would be construed as canvassing. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:36pm • 08:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing quite a number of messages being delivered by this bot which I don't really see as appropriate. I think maybe it would be a good idea to tighten up your guidelines for approving requests/approvers. Also, it might be an idea if the person making the request didn't approve it themselves, as Fridae'sDoom did in this case.. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think making it impossible for users to approve their own requests is a good idea. The whole point of having approved users is so that trusted users who use the bot regularly don't have to wait to have their messages sent out. However, I do agree that a stricter set of rules and a smaller number of approvers would be a good idea. - EdoDodo ^talk 08:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I don't have a problem with your message, especially since it was sent out to a relatively small number of people. However, no message should receive complaints - if it does something must be wrong. Perhaps it would be a good idea to create a set of rules for which messages are acceptable, in order to avoid problems like this one. - EdoDodo ^talk 08:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Created a basic set of rules at User:MessageDeliveryBot/Rules. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:18pm • 09:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've added a couple more things, everyone is welcome to add whatever rules they see fit. - EdoDodo ^talk 09:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

One more rule to add: The people you're contacting should be likely to care about the issue. I didn't. Neither did a number of the people I talked to who also received the message. That is what I found most annoying, that there was a functionality to mass send a message that might not be looked at from the perspective of those who would be receiving it. NW (Talk) 16:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. I added something similar before seeing NW's post above. I'll look to clarify it. Netalarm^talk 20:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Messages sent by MessageDeliveryBot should explain why a particular user is receiving the message, and how they can opt-out of future messages. And I agree with those above it should not be used to send random canvassing-type messages where a post to the village pump and listing on CENT would do just as well attracting outside opinions. –xeno^talk 14:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Added rule. - EdoDodo ^talk 15:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me just state that I was unaware that it was canvassing, I had only notified the users I notified because the talk page itself is not a high-traffic talk page and had only had 1 comment in the first 2 or 3 days of my submitting the RfC. I should have done well to inform the users as to why I sent the message and should not have given my own personal opinion in the message, it was very much a silly mistake. I would do well to avoid future instances of this occurring. Also I would suggest appending this ruleset to the main submission and approval interface in different context, eg. When submitting a message... and When approving a message... Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 2:35pm • 03:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Links to rules have been added on the interface, anyone breaking them from now on will approval removed. I have reapproved you for the moment. - EdoDodo ^talk 05:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot is now running again. - EdoDodo ^talk 13:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In future Fridae, you can post short, neutral notes about the discussion to WP:VPP and {{CENT}} (if appropriate). –xeno^talk 13:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)