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

Phe-bot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Phe (talk)

Recat, specific replacement like [1]. This bot has bot-flag on fr.wikisource, en.wikisource and a few other, my oldest bot has bot-flag on fr.wp on the name fr:User:Badmood since 2004. Phe (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or manually assisted: Always manually assisted at least for the first changes in each run, automated else.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): daily.

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): pywikipedia default, depend on how lag the server, from one per minute up to 12 max per minute. A few changes at start of each run at a lower rate.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python

Phe (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


    • I think will idea to replace plain text author information with creator template when doing similar license tags updates.
    • Could you pleas provide more information about categories changes? What is criteria to make a change?
    • EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Make sense to add a creator for these ~750 files.
      • Like this [2], the |Date= field allowed to cat in the right Books by year sub-cats. These was without bot flags as I needed to validate each change. Change was not the correct word when presenting the bot, here it's adding cat based on template parameter value. Phe (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
        How bot find out year of publication? It makes mistakes sometimes. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
        Right, I missed this one when looking the diff, the bot took it from the birth date because the Date = was missing. Phe (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Has this issue been resolved in the bot? --99of9 (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the bot take the date from the Date= only, it no longer take it from a random place. Phe (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Great. In the edit summary, could you please add something like "based on date of creation given in the date field"? Please go ahead and start using your bot a bit more. We can monitor the subsequent edits for any further changes before applying the bot flag. --99of9 (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    Pardon me, but did you get I asked bot flag one year ago, this request is finished since a long time and it's now nearly one year I'm requesting bot flag to be able to work on commons ? Phe (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am trying to close the old requests. So we should close it as stale? You don't want to use the bot for anything else? --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • What I need the bot flag for is specified in the "Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:" section. 11:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Then I go back to my previous answer. I'd still like to see more detail provided in the edit summary, and since you're not doing any current edits, I can't really approve until I do (or you at least say you will). Why not just go ahead and start using it for more edits? Another bureaucrat may be willing to close without this, but I am not. --99of9 (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Pardon me but this was already done one year go Special:Contributions/Phe-bot, sorry if I look like a bit bothered by this one year old request but did you get this bot has more than 470,000 contributions on various project, and cumulated with my fr.wp bot I reach 1,2000,000 contributions ? Are people wanting to help commons welcome ? Phe (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You have not understood me. I have seen those test-edits in the contributions. What I'm saying is that I don't think the edit summaries are good enough (it's particularly important when the legal license tag on a file is changed). They should also include "based on date of creation given in the date field". --99of9 (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It boils down to "is this bot still needed?". If so, why dont we see any activity from the requester? I'm inclined to close this as stale. --Dschwen (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, close, as I didn't see any activity during nine month after my initial request, it look likes commons does't need any help. Phe (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you were honest with yourself you would see that you were not the most responsive person either. --Dschwen (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Pardon me but you really expect people to daily check a page history or a watch list after nine consecutive month of inactivity ? Phe (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
We expect bot operators to be responsive. You got people engaged in your request immediately (the day after the request was posted). You gave an unsatisfactory answer on August 16th, and then did not bother to proactively follow the request. Only after 99of9 asks you if the issue has been solved you answer, but ignore his comment about the edit summaries for another 2 months. Only then you do not answer but just make flippant remarks on how the request is not needed anymore(?). Your bot shows no activity, no test edits, and you do not seem to be interested in following up with the request. And you still have not adressed the issue of the unsatisfactory edit summaries. --Dschwen (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
lol. Phe (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing as stale. Sorry you had a bad experience with the bot request. It's true that there was a shortage of active bureaucrats for those nine months. Feel free to open a new request if you become interested again in helping out with your bot on Commons. We will endeavour to be much quicker (we have reduced the queue significantly, and are starting to process requests soon after they come in). --99of9 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)