Commons:Bots/Requests/Computer (01)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Computer (Formerly WOPR)[edit]

Operator: White Cat

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic and supervised

Programming Language(s): AWB

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Semi automatic runs whenever needed such as when a category rename is agreed upon

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Functions: AWB has many functionalities but I will be using it for find and replace tasks such as for category renames (or deletions).

Discussion[edit]

Hence I hereby request -- Cat chi? 15:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Symbol comment vote.svg Comment It is not obvious from the bot's user name that it is a bot. —Benn Newman 00:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    WOPR (pronounced "Whopper") is an acronym for War Operation Plan Response, Stephen Falken and John McKittrick's fictional military computer featured in the movie and novel WarGames.
    I think it should be fine. -- Cat chi? 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No objection. The people on en.wikipedia approved this bot/username even though it does signify a bot. Hence we give White Cat this exception. (zelzany - framed) 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How many bots do we need doing this, anyway? Are the current bots not keeping up? How will your bot figure out when renames are "agreed upon"? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If we need more bots then go for it, but I don't want the situation that two edit-warrers can go to two different places to get different bots to revert mass changes. There seem to be a number of category rename bots now. Maybe I'm wrong. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    I am not certain how many bots there are taking care of this task. I would only operate my bot for issues there is consensus on such as via COM:DEL. Edit warring is out of the question on my end - wont happen. -- Cat chi? 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    So are you saying you only intend to use it to enact decisions from COM:DEL? If so then that's fine by me. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 17:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    Well, maybe a VP discussion or undeletion too - similar processes. I would use it to enact decisions only, yes. -- Cat chi? 17:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with pfctdayelise, that this is not good idea to have multiple bots with different configurations doing same thing. May be better solution to have several bots reading same configuration (User:CommonsDelinker/commands) and back-up each other. Same way as bots operates on Commons:Welcome log. I don't know how easily do this, this is question to Bryan.
  • I also agree with Newmanbe, that name of bot is not clear for those, who don't read or watch too much fiction :-) EugeneZelenko 14:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    There are many such bots (Example: User:Loveless). Something bot flagged is a bot. Its name shouldn't be an issue since it isn't offensive. The user can click on the username and learn that this is a bot. The discussion should really be about the bots functionality and not its name. -- Cat chi? 17:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
✓ Done Stop messing with the cat. Cary Bass demandez 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)