Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2006-05/Request for Bot status: User:CommonsTicker
- Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2006/May#Request for Bot status: User:CommonsTicker.
The Commons admin commons:User:Duesentrieb has tentatively activated his CommonsTicker 'bot for us. This tool provides preemptive notification of Commons activities that affect Wiktionary (en.wikt:) pages. Without the bot flag, the messages will appear in Recentchanges as well.
- For bot status:
- Please! At least mark edits as minor for now, I can't imagine what this will do to RC if it gets busy over there. - TheDaveRoss 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Erm, I may be changing my vote again, as it does not seem to update when there are no new events; rather, the tests for getting it initialized were causing too much traffic at first. Now that it is settling down, we should only see relevant items, not tests. Therefore, it probably is a good idea for these to appear in RecentChanges. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether we need many votes here. It's an experiment and I can't see who would be against it. —Vildricianus 20:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Joins the party. — Vildricianus 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please! At least mark edits as minor for now, I can't imagine what this will do to RC if it gets busy over there. - TheDaveRoss 23:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Against bot status:
During this experimental phase, I'd like to see these in RecentChanges. One message every three hours is still kind of annoying. I would like this to be "hidden" from Special:Recentchanges, as I'll be keeping an eye on it daily. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Sorry for the back-and-forth, but I think more people need to notice this aproximately once-a-day edit. As we gradually figure out how to address the issue of "bad image links" we may not need to see these anymore. But for now, (sheesh, and I made this nomination!) I am against 'bot-flagging this account. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)- Can we have a policy to disallow excessive vote changes? — Vildricianus 21:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- That was a joke, right? On a complicated issue like this (I call it that if for no other reason than that I don't understand it myself), if someone is "thinking out loud", and realizes that a previous "vote" was in error, I don't see any reason to disallow that -- if anything the honesty should be celebrated. (It certainly wouldn't rate a block!) Or am I missing something? –scs 23:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Of course. There was an inordinately loud party going on next door yesterday night. Blame it on that. — Vildricianus 11:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK then, I'll simply change my vote to abstain... :-) erm... --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Of course. There was an inordinately loud party going on next door yesterday night. Blame it on that. — Vildricianus 11:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- That was a joke, right? On a complicated issue like this (I call it that if for no other reason than that I don't understand it myself), if someone is "thinking out loud", and realizes that a previous "vote" was in error, I don't see any reason to disallow that -- if anything the honesty should be celebrated. (It certainly wouldn't rate a block!) Or am I missing something? –scs 23:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can we have a policy to disallow excessive vote changes? — Vildricianus 21:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is the most hilarious vote I've seen so far. Serious though, with three/four additions a day, I'd like to see these. It's the purpose of the Ticker that it is seen, right? — Vildricianus 18:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral:
- Comments:
- Note that it is only reporting image deletion (etc) nominations for en.wikt:...not all commons deletion nominations. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)