User talk:Hagerman/Archive/2

User:Hagerman/Userboxes/User HRC

Thanks for helping to make the userbox compliant, Durin! I appreciate your efforts to eliminate the improper utilization of fair use images on Wikipedia. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 23:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An example where the bot caused more work to be done

Thanks for the info. As always, I'm open to any suggestions you might have to make the bot run more smoothly with Wikipedia processes. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the bot could stop signing a user's comments after two or three unsigned comments on different user talk pages (counter resetted once per day) so this kind of internal spamming (or, in this case, trolling) is easier to roll back? Kusma (討論) 08:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Perhaps it would be a good idea combine this with the user notification feature (I think Hagerman recently got approval to trial it). In other words, if a user forgets to sign three comments within 24 hours, the bot would leave them a message on their talk page and then not sign their comments any more. This would make it easier to deal with the contributions of users who started spamming talk pages – as only the first three comments would need to be reverted manually, an administrator could rollback all the others without issue. If on the other hand a user was making legitimate comments but forgetting to sign, they would recieve a "new messages" notification soon after leaving the third unsigned comment as the bot left its {{tilde}}; after reading that they should (hopefully) start signing any subsequent comments and so it wouldn't matter that the bot was ignoring them –

12 December 2006

(GMT).

Indeed it will, unless some newcomer has gone mad with AWB. It'll be a while before it catches up with, ah, certain people, though... – Gurch 11:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does have a long way to go to catch up to some of the edit counts (Rich, you scare me!), but it would be nice to see it place as the highest new entry. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 14:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there difference between 'unsigned', 'signed and linked by non-logged in users', and 'signed but not linked by non-logged in users'?

I wonder, since a non-logged in user made this contribution (note the words "Adolph 172" at the end, which form what ordinary people call a signature), and promptly got HagermanBoted thus. Isn't that a somewhat unflexible usage? --JoergenB 13:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you witnessed is actually a feature. The bot signed because the user that left that comment wasn't necessarily Adolph 172, it could have been someone else impersonating them. Had that user been logged in, the bot wouldn't have signed that comment. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 13:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point; but (IMO) if indeed the user (as (s)he claimed) is new, then perhaps the boot's message could be more flexible. From any non-WP's view, a signature in ordinary sense is better than an IP-address.--JoergenB 16:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, they are signing with a name that is not registered to them. I believe the bot should let other Wikipedians know that. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Appears to work! :-) Hagerman^(talk) 02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, wouldn't it be cool to get that message on my talk page 10 times a day :). Signature forthcoming from HagermanBot... —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by NoSeptember (talk • contribs) 12:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply

]

Now the question is, what would happen if HagermanBot forgot to sign its own messages? Would it go back and sign them, and then leave itself a polite message asking itself to sign messages in future? And if it did, would it forget to sign that? ... OK, I'm confused... – Gurch 01:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, I think we are all screwed. The chain reaction might destroy Wikipedia... Hagerman^(talk) 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lies, Untruths, and Falsities+ The HagermanBot did not sign the Declaration of Independence. Please refrain from posting unverifiable content on the Wiki. Thanks +

Actually, the citations are made in United States Declaration of Independence under the section titled Controversy. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 01:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opt out and talk page

Hmm... no, unless you added <!--Disable HagermanBot--> to your talk page, it should still handle unsigned comments for you. Looking at the contributions right now, it seems that the bot had network connection issues around 12:02 PM EST today and any unsigned comments left from then until now weren't marked. I'll try to determine the cause of the crash. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just marked an edit on my talk page so it seems be working. Maybe there were a lot of edits happening at the same time and the bot "missed" some? -- lucasbfr ^talk 03:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it completely crashed. When I connected to the PC I was greeted by the wonderful .NET just-in-time debugger. :-) Based on the stack trace, it looks like the problem was that the IRC connection was dropped. The software is designed to re-establish a connection when dropped, however, it looks like things went crazy. I released a new version that handles a dropped IRC connection differently; we'll see how it works. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 04:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reconnecting to IRC is a tricky task. I keep having problems doing so with my RC reader, to the point where I've given up trying to make it work and just restart it if the connection drops. I tried the RC reader that comes with AutoWikiBrowser once and I think it has the same problem – Gurch 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Bot

Feel free to turn it off if you think you'll remember to go back and sign. :-) Best, Hagerman^(talk) 03:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot

Thanks! Best, Hagerman^(talk) 02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this really is useful. Today, for instance, I was able to see exactly which anonymous user wrote "you suck hardcore" at the bottom of my talk page, without having to check the history. Thanks! – Gurch 01:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it seems that your bot signs my name more often than I do. It saves me editing the article to correct my oversight. Thank your bot for me, and if it has feelings, wish it a very merry christmas. Rintrah 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) Hagerman^(talk) 23:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot (again)

The current version can edit pages on any MediaWiki driven site, however, it also depends on an IRC recent changes channel. I intend to release an open source version of the application as soon as all the bugs are worked out. When I do so, I'll make it so that it can be driven off of the actual Recent Changes page rather than being completely dependant on the IRC service. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't realize that the RC IRC feed covered so many Wikimedia projects. I can use the current version to begin monitoring for unsigned comments. Are they just looking for unsigned comments in the talk namespaces? Hagerman^(talk) 03:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk namespaces would be great fantasic! (there are also some discussions in the main namespace, but we can deal with those). So come on over and make your bot an account (I see you've already made one for yourself) - then I'll post on v:WV:BOT for it to be flagged :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, while I was typing that you already did. ;) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I actually beat you to the request for approval :-). Best, Hagerman^(talk) 03:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your bot! The Wikiversity 'crat who approves bots has requested, "Please run the bot without flag for a couple of days so we can get a picture of how it works". --JWSchmidt 15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It's running now, please let me know if notice any problems. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 23:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOT is too fastI ran into the same problem last night. I cut and paste to Word for spelling checks and got an edit conflict when I went to paste back over my original post before signing. After hundreds of posts on websites I have learned to get the first draft in the machine before I cut and paste to Word as the internet can and will eat some percentage of posts otherwise. I like the idea of the Bot very much, but if you can't make it less intrusive then it just becomes a nagging annoyance. We should not discourage behavior that results in better posts, such as cutting and pasting to/from Word.

I would like to suggest a timer to control a timed-delay. Five minutes seems about right, or perhaps something that is user-configurable. The Bot is quite unnecessary in my case as I always sign my comments, but that is not true of everybody. Signing with URLs seems a bit silly.

Solidpoint 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A delay has been suggested many times in the past. The reason that a delay intentionally doesn't exist is because it would result in a lot of edit conflicts if the bot signed the page as someone was replying (which is more likely to happen after 5 minutes, then a second or two). Best, Hagerman^(talk) 23:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log

Thanks for the heads up! As long as the category stays there (which I see it still is) it won't have any interference. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 01:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome!The following comment was posted on User talk:HagermanBot:

Wow, it's nice to have this bot to auto-mark unsigned comments (especially from IP users...)! I appreciate whoever owns it very much! Oh, and the sign: Vic226_(chat) 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again today I was able to see that it was "

with my own bots, which should make things clearer, and hopefully ensure all comments are posted here. Is that OK? – Gurch 06:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Vivaldi! Gurch, thanks for moving the comment and setting up the re-direct style link, that will definitely help. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 13:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great bot! :) Zerak-Tul 13:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

not answeringcan i know the reason my questions are not being answered Chirag111 09:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC) hello Chirag111 09:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U ALL ARE USELESS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! I HAVE BEEN BROWSING FOR PAST 5 HRS BUT DIDNT GET ANY USEFUL INFORMATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chirag111 09:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like you are referring to some questions posted at the science reference desk. I don't typically deal with reference desk questions. The reason you see my name in the history is because I run a bot that signs unsigned comments all over Wikipedia. It might take a few days for you to receive a response from some of the reference desk editors. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 17:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Your bot

Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 18:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Bot.

Thanks, glad to see its working :-) Hagerman^(talk) 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot suggestion

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are asking. Are you suggesting that the bot only sign IP edits? Best, Hagerman^(talk) 18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. What I mean is instead of it saying "The preceding unsigned comment was added by..." it could actually just provide the actual signature and time. In effect the Bot would change the page to make it as if the comment had been signed in the first place. Hope that's clearer.- WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand now! The opt-in feature will be taking care of that when its released in a few days. What you'll be able to do is give the bot permission to sign your posts with your actual signature when you forget to sign. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 18:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Sounds like a good development. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot commentSome downsides

• People can become lazy as this bot just signs the comments for them so they no longer have to use tildes and no longer learn to continually sign

• Some people can't remain anonymous as a joke or simply. Simply south 18:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a safety measure to make rolling back vandalism easy, after the bot signs twice for a user in a 24 hour period, it will stop signing their comments for them. If a user really wants to remain "anonymous" for one edit, they can put !NOSIGN! somewhere in their edit summary and the bot won't place the template. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 18:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Simply south 18:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from User talk:Mikehoncho

There is no justification for blatant vandalism. If you keep editing like that, you'll be blocked from Wikipedia. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 19:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, Hagermanbot, why you gotta always be like that?Usually I sign my stuff but I just left a thing unsigned accidentally and within like a minute you were telling everybody I didn't sign my edit. You just trying to make me look bad, just saying I didn't edit things? And then, I check your contribs, and all you done is the same thing. You a punk just searching talk pages trying to show people up for forgetting to sign things.

You know, a computer program could do the exact same thing as you, Hagermanbot, but you gotta do it yourself because you got so much time to hate. Just program something to do it for you! —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by IceJew (talk • contribs) 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply

]

I'm not sure if the above is intended as sarcasm. My responses are listed below:

Sarcasm: LOL :-) Best, Hagerman^(talk) 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Comment: Umm... HagermanBot is a program. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

You're welcome! Best, Hagerman^(talk) 05:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned bot

Hagermanbot tripping up on server delays

There is no such thing as a server delay with regards to parsing the wikicode on an edit. The reason the ~~~~ wasn't parsed was because the edit above included the tag <!-- Template:Idw -- with no closing bracket. As a result, the parser did not interpret the tildes as a signature, which is why HagermanBot signed it. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 18:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My point is that the bot can look at the entirety of the text posted by the user in question and see if there is a trailing ~~~~ on the post, as was the case on mine. --Durin 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand. I was just trying to make sure you understood that the server doesn't need to "catch up" and sign comments. They either work or they don't, and the reason they didn't work was because the other user left an open tag. I'll make it so the bot doesn't touch comments like that since the remainder of the page is usually fubar anyway. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 17:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HagermanBot

Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding hagermanbot

What the bot does is connect to the recent changes IRC channel where another bot sends out the names of articles that just been changed along with their diff link. My bot:

1. Passes those article titles through a name validation function to make sure its a talk page or that it exists in one of the opt-in categories (which are cached every 5 minutes).
2. If the article title passes name validation, the bot pulls the diff and determines if it meets all of the conditions.
3. If the conditions are met, the bot pulls the full page which gives us the first look at the last editor's username. It then confirms that the user isn't on the whitelist and that the page doesn't have an exclusion tag.
4. If the exclusion tests pass, it inserts a record into a SQL database indicating the user and time of the unsigned comment.
5. If the user hasn't made more than 2 unsigned comments, in a 24 hour period, the bot signs the comment.
6. If the user has made exactly 2 unsigned comments in a 24 hour period, the bot also leaves a message on the user's talk page.

And then it moves on to the next page in the queue. I promised I'd post the source code once I feel the bot is pretty stable. I intend to post it relatively soon. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing signature

Because the comment didn't exist as an indent or a new section. As a precaution, the bot doesn't sign those to prevent a false positive. Eventually, I'll write the logic in to handle those types of edits. It would be something like, check to see if the section already has a signature, then step forward after the line of text that was added to see if the next signature (if it exists) is by the user who made the edit. If it does exist, and it does not belong to the current user, then add the unsigned template. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestionAt [7] I suggested a generic template nobots to control bots. This eould mean if someone hated bots they could ban them (by and large) from their talk or user page(s). The syntax is

{nobots}  - ban all bots
{nobots|execpt=<botlist>} ban all the bots not in the list
{nobots|theseones=<botlist>} ban all the bots in the list

Clearly the level of support from the bot owners would vary. If, for example, you've opted in to WerdnaBot or RalBot, then there's little point banning it. Similarly VandalBots might decide that it would be bad to take notice.

There hasn't been much response, but I thought I'd run it past you to see if you'd consider honoring it in HB. Regards

17 December 2006

(GMT).

Actually, I think that's a great idea. The concept reminds me of the

Robots Exclusion Standard for websites. I'll fully support whatever syntax is finalized. However, I'd like to suggest changing the "execpt" and "theseones" parameters to "allow" and "deny" respectively (ex. {{nobots|allow=HagermanBot,EssjayBot III}}). I think that might be more clear to the end user. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 23:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, agree.

18 December 2006

(GMT).

Great, the support for nobots should be built in later this evening. Maybe we should make a template to put on a bot's userpage to indicate that it supports the "Wikipedia Bot Exclusion Standard" or something like that? Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not a bad idea. Except presumably now I've got to go program this into all my bots so they respect it (more work, gah). One thing, though: are you expecting AntiVandalBot to be rewritten to conform to this? I ask only because once persistent vandals figure this out it would be open to abuse: adding garbage to a page followed by "" (the template itself would presumably just be blank on the page so nobody would notice), thus rendering the bot unable to revert it. So will that bot be an exception to the rule? – Gurch 12:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

Robots Exclusion Standard for websites, mentioned above, is voluntary. The owner of AntiVandalBot might decide not to observe this standard, but that shouldn't really impact anything else. John Broughton | Talk 15:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Correct. I wouldn't expect any of the vandal bots to allow exclusion. Best,

WP:RFBOT

Some suggestions: Some of the users were so new that this message might be less useful than a proper welcome or no message at all. We don't want to overwhelm complete newbies. So perhaps we could do one of the following:
1) not leave this message to any user who has less than 20 edits in their contribution list (or some other number you think is right),
2) not leave a message to any user whose user talk page has not yet been created, and/or
3) substitute a welcome message (with a line about signing) to any user whose user talk page has not yet been created. NoSeptember 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I haven't been able to come to a decision on this yet, anyone care to offer their input? Best, Hagerman^(talk) 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Per Ram-Man's final approval [8], I've granted a bot flag to your bot. Cheers, Redux 00:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hagerman^(talk) 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad there's no further input. here's another issue: If IPs can be identified by range easily, we could also not post messages on fast changing IP addresses (like AOL) where the message may never be seen by the right person, and the multiple unsigned comments may have been left by multiple users. NoSeptember 11:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. MediaWiki:Blockiptext has a list of AOL IP ranges, I imagine the bot could distinguish those fairly easily. As for the issue of other new users, suggestion (3) above sounds good except that people have objected recently to bots leaving welcome messages, so it might be better to go with a combination of (1) and (2) just to avoid complaints – Gurch 12:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the objection to welcome messages is due the fact that most new accounts remain with no contributions and a bunch of welcoming is overkill, the bot's routine would limit these to users who have left a minimum of 2 comments on talk pages, and they have definitely moved beyond the no contributions stage. If it is the issue of a bot being impersonal, we could solve this by having the bot add these users to a list somewhere, where live Wikipedians can then adopt a new user, leave a welcome message (with reference to signing), and strike them off the list.

tilde}} message anyway (unless its AOL, then it gets discarded). Does that sound about right? Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 17:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds good to me, and can be tweaked as you go along. You may want to ask the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee how their members choose to welcome people. If they are just using the new user creation log, then your list wil be much better quality, since it guarantees someone with at least 2 contributions plus something to talk about (how to sign). NoSeptember 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks for the suggestion. I'll follow up with the welcoming committee. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot!

Thanks for pointing that out. I just released a beta version and it looks like something strange is happening. I've temporarily shut down the bot until I can determine what caused that edit. Thanks again!

AWB

DotNetWikiBot framework that the bot is based on calls these lines...

           if (isMinorEdit)
           	postData = postData.Insert(postData.IndexOf("wpSummary"), "wpMinoredit=1&");

...when saving a page. Since ais523 posted... (I put in the ___ to avoid crashing any other bots that might edit this page later on)

<input tabindex='2' type='text' value="/* Long edit summaries */ "
 name='wp___Summary' id='wp___Summary' maxlength='200' size='60' />

...it confused the hell out of the framework and caused that edit. This is pretty big, it affects anything that uses DotNetWikiBot which is AWB and most Visual Studio developed bots (like mine). Any time the framework tries to save a page with that text, it will cause some blanking. I'll try to write a band-aide and notify the other stakeholders so they can release a proper fix. Thanks again! Hagerman^(talk) 02:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Opened a new bug at sourceforge and I've written a temporary fix into my custom build of the DotNetWikiBot. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 02:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erk... so the framework is looking for that exact text in the source of the page... and finds it in the inputbox instead of where it should find it. Yeah, that's going to cause problems. Easy fix, take the contents of the input box out of the string before searching it for other things... I assume you've done something similar – Gurch 11:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing Luna spotted this, though... I'd better go check my own bots' code, make sure there's nothing similar in there – Gurch 11:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the line directly above that block of code sets the post data when executing the save command. It contains each of the input fields except for wpMinoredit. My modification to the framework just removes the need to search and replace and instead inserts it when setting post data. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great bot, and a reward...I really thought I had signed the comment, but I cannot prove it. I checked my others in that timeperiod and they were signed with no problem. So, thank you for the auto-signing. I am surprised all messages are not autosigned, but then I am new at this...

Here is the reward, a real human reading over your message has found a problem that the bots missed. :)

Your archive message is missing a word. "My inactive conversations are routinely archived. Please an archive to view the history:" Please [select,choose,click] an archive... CodeCarpenter 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that! I guess I've got to come up with a fix for the missing words bot :-) Best, Hagerman^(talk) 18:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bot code

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten! I think I'm very close to a mature release. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned bot

Just FYI, EssjayBot III incorrectly archived the above comment. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I've never seen EssjayBot III do that, I'll let him know. About the datetime stamp, all unsigned templates left by HagermanBot always include the datetime stamp. Anything that doesn't have it was probably added by another user manually. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 18:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, nevermind, I see you beat me to notifying Essjay :-). Best, Hagerman^(talk) 18:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot has slowed

I'm having some network connection issues today. It was taking more than a couple of seconds for the bot to pull a diff and it kept causing the program to overload by trying to pull 50+ diffs at the same time. All appears to be well now though (*fingers crossed*). Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I jinxed it, the connection was down for the last 2 hours. It's back up now, but still not running at the normal speed. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 02:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, still seems to be intermittent. Hasn't edit now for two hours, for example. I've had two unsigned messages on my talk page in the last 12 hours and it hasn't spotted either. Hopefully things will clear up soon – Gurch 12:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things seem normal right now, I'm back to my full download speed. Let's hope the cable company got everything sorted out. :) Best, Hagerman^(talk) 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

• Support 'Grace period' before shaming a new, but not completely stupid, editor. I generally notice and fix on the final check before doing real edits. ```` oh sorry ... Fred.e 19:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot intentionally doesn't have a delay to avoid edit conflicts. The quicker the bot can sign the comment, the less likely someone else will begin editing the page before the unsigned template is left. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with regards to the administrator rollback function. The bot will stop leaving the unsigned template after three unsigned comments within a 24 hour period. This way, the most that will have to be rolled back manually is 3 edits. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 01:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the bot

Update: I guess the bot did not in fact blank my comment, as I just found out that was due to

Tractorkingsfan 04:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Gotcha, that's happened before when a user leaves an open tag in a comment up above. I intend to begin searching for that in the next release, but unfortunately, I'm away on vacation at the moment and I'm unable to recompile the bot. I'll correct the changes as soon as I get back to my place later this week. Best,

Tractorkingsfan 02:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Lol, Stop Stalking My Edits

Thanks :-) Best, Hagerman^(talk) 17:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...

That is the correct functionality of that category. It will match only subpages of the parent page. So Wikipedia:Editor review has the Category:Non-talk pages with subpages automatically signed by HagermanBot category attached causing it to match only Wikipedia:Editor review/* pages. If it had the Category:Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot it would only match Wikipedia:Editor review. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 17:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Opt-out problemsYour bot appears to require me to post without leaving an edit summary in order to get free.

I won't commit one crime to undo another, so please remove me manually from the bot's server drain.

Thanks v much and happy editing.

ЯEDVERS 21:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The lack of an edit summary won't alter the bot's behavior, it's probably just a coincidence that your edit is meeting all of the criteria on the edits which include an edit summary. As for opting out, the instructions are on the bot's userpage under the section Turning It Off. You probably want to follow the instructions under the option for user permanent. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 01:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the bot's a server drain... it's pretty useful. I'd rather have 0.01% more load on the servers than any more load on humans having to figure out who forgot to sign... servers are less valuable than editors :-) --W.marsh 03:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the servers cost thousands of dollars to maintain, but editors work for free. Read the Foundation's financial statement; we have no value :) – Gurch 00:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and with regard to the "server drain", at peak times Wikipedia gets 24,000 page views a second; I can't imagine the bot is requesting more than one page per second (it can ignore the majority of edits because they're not new comments to talk page). A look at its contributions shows several minutes between edits, of which it accounts for a larger, but still negligible proportion – Gurch 21:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

Thanks! Happy holidays to you as well! Best, Hagerman^(talk) 17:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the speed that your bot works at is commendable. It caught one of my forgetful signing moments within seconds. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 18:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, glad it picked it up quickly, there have been some network connection issues lately on the PC that it's running on. :-) Best, Hagerman^(talk) 05:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's exactly what I came here to say, too. Fantastically fast bot. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with your bot when I edit my Talk post right after posting it (say, to correct spelling mistakes): saving my second edit results in an edit conflict because your bot interferes too soon. That happened just now and I had to hit my browser's 'back' button to copy my corrected text, then re-edit the Talk page and paste the text to finish the edit that I by now should have been finished with were it not for your meddlesome bot! I would appreciate it if there were a longer time delay before your bot does its business, so that users like myself may correct any overseen typos undisturbed.

There's an easier way to fix an edit conflict in cases like this. When you get the edit conflict screen there are two edit boxes; the upper one contains the current version of the page and the lower one contains your text. Scroll down to the lower one, copy all the text and paste it into the upper one (no need to press the Back button). This will save your edit and overwrite HagermanBot's signature, which isn't a problem as long as you remember to sign the second time –

unsigned comment was added by 71.32.56.91 (talk • contribs

) 08:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hagerman/Archive/2&oldid=1105104009"