No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | [[category:bots]] |
||
{{Forumheader|Watercooler}} |
{{Forumheader|Watercooler}} |
||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> |
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> |
||
| − | + | Hello, in order for [[User:AMK152Bot]] to be flagged, it needs consensus from the community. The bot will perform maintenance tasks, such as fixing double redirects, standardizing categories, standardizing page names, etc. It will be much easier than performing the tasks manually. If everyone agrees and there are no objections, a Staff member will flag the bot. -[[User:AMK152|<font color="blue">AMK152</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:AMK152|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AMK152|contribs]]</sup>) 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
| − | : |
+ | :Alright by me [[User:Thurstan|Thurstan]] 03:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
| − | : |
+ | :I have no problem with it. [[User:Elrondlair|Will]] 03:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
| + | :If it works and makes life easier, then I'm all for it.[[User:Wittichen|Wittichen]] 04:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
| + | :I'm fine with that as long as the bot respects the consultation procedures in [[Genealogy:Bot policy]]. (I guess I will have to "unwatch" hundreds of watched pages before the system sends me too many emails about changing them!) [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] 06:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
| + | ::*The consultation procedures can be here: [[User talk:AMK152Bot]]. -[[User:AMK152|<font color="blue">AMK152</font>]]<sup>([[User talk:AMK152|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AMK152|contribs]]</sup>) 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
| + | :Sounds goood to me. --[[User:TreeGenea3|TreeGenea3]] 05:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | Flagged as requested :) -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]]<staff /> ([[User talk:sannse|talk]]) 09:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
| + | :Sorry for the delay. Though it is belated and irrelevant now, for what it's worth I approve the flag too. My opinion is that Bot flags really confer no special powers. Bots can flood the edit log, making it hard to spot nefarious activity. THe bot flag just allows you to filter out such mass edits. You still can look at everything. INHO, I think these flags pretty much should be given out to all comers so long as they agree to the policy on bots. Regards to everyone. I hope to return to full duties in a few months. Currently my time is consumed with a more pressing matter of public service. Regards, [[User:Phlox|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">''<font color="#0A9DC2">''~''</font>''''' <font color="#0DC4F2">Ph</font><font color="#3DD0F5">l</font><font color="#6EDCF7">o</font><font color="#9EE8FA">x</font>'''</span>]] 20:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 20:39, 6 August 2008
Forums: Index > Watercooler > AMK152Bot, need consensus
Hello, in order for User:AMK152Bot to be flagged, it needs consensus from the community. The bot will perform maintenance tasks, such as fixing double redirects, standardizing categories, standardizing page names, etc. It will be much easier than performing the tasks manually. If everyone agrees and there are no objections, a Staff member will flag the bot. -AMK152(talk • contribs) 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alright by me Thurstan 03:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with it. Will 03:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- If it works and makes life easier, then I'm all for it.Wittichen 04:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that as long as the bot respects the consultation procedures in Genealogy:Bot policy. (I guess I will have to "unwatch" hundreds of watched pages before the system sends me too many emails about changing them!) Robin Patterson 06:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- The consultation procedures can be here: User talk:AMK152Bot. -AMK152(talk • contribs) 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds goood to me. --TreeGenea3 05:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Flagged as requested :) -- sannse (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay. Though it is belated and irrelevant now, for what it's worth I approve the flag too. My opinion is that Bot flags really confer no special powers. Bots can flood the edit log, making it hard to spot nefarious activity. THe bot flag just allows you to filter out such mass edits. You still can look at everything. INHO, I think these flags pretty much should be given out to all comers so long as they agree to the policy on bots. Regards to everyone. I hope to return to full duties in a few months. Currently my time is consumed with a more pressing matter of public service. Regards, ~ Phlox 20:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)