User talk:69.225.5.183

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 69.225.5.183. You have new messages at Kraftlos's talk page.
Message added 05:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's time to stop aiding the Essjays[edit]

Metamaterials

CobraBot reply[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 69.225.5.183. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CobraBot 2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Could you remove link [4] on Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Quick_approvals_without_community_consensus_or_discussion? Unlike the AN/I and Village Pump threads, it does not pertain to CobraBot. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That discussion was about adding OCLC#s to citation templates, not infoboxes. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

re: CobraBot[edit]

Hi there 69.225.5.183, and thanks for your recent message on my talk page. Sorry I've taken so long to reply.

I have to admit, when I approved this, I didn't think anybody would mind a bot adding a correct parameter to the infobox of a number of articles. And looking over the conversations about it (naturally I haven't been able to read everything), it seems that a few people are complaining about the actual link, but quite a lot of people are fine with the bot edit.

The link is in the infobox template, not something that the bot has added. So why Gavin Collins thinks the bot's edits should be rolled back on the basis of link spamming is beyond me. Most people seem to agree that if anything should be changed it's the infobox template.

As to no community discussion, I regret that I didn't post something on the talkpage of the template, or a similar place. But the thing is, these kinds of posts rarely produce results. But nonetheless, I agree it would have been better for me to do so, and after that BRfA, I'm much more cautious when approving a bot for a task which isn't already approved.

As to the link about Citation bot, the two bots are doing different tasks. While the information provided in the citation should be used to find the book (and is therefore useless if the ISBN is present). The information in the infobox should be used to provide an overview of the subject, and if that is not the reason the OCLC parameter is in the infobox, then frankly I'd be happy to see it removed.

As to waiting some more time before mainspace editing bots are approved, I'd be happy to, and will, do that from now on :), unless there is already clear consensus for the task.

One last thing, please do not imply that I haven't read the bot policy, I am aware that bot tasks need community support (it's just very difficult to come by any community input). And as a member of BAG I've read the bot policy numerous times. If there is anything else, please feel free to contact me again on my talkpage. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, the community rarely cares about what bots are going to do until they are actually doing it. But I've admitted that I should have seeked community input regardless of whether I thought I would receive it or not. So the answer to your question is, as I said above, I made a mistake.
However, I do not think the bot should stop running on this basis. As now there has been community discussion.
It shows that the community was interested in OCLC parameters in the citation templates one year ago. Honestly I don't think it is strongly connected to CobraBot's task.
That the bot "has never been the object of community consensus", is no longer true, as there has now been a lot of community discussion. But I admit that this should have been true at the time I approved the bot. So in future, I'll try to make sure that I ask for community input (as I said above).
It seems to me like in the discussion there is no consensus for the bot to stop, instead there is a number of people suggesting that the template be changed. I wouldn't be comfortable taking action on my own judgement on whether or not the result of the discussions about CobraBot is that it should cease to run, as I am very much involved. So if you want a deflag, ask another member of BAG, or raise it on WT:BRFA (as you have done). If you would prefer to continue this at the WT:BRFA page, please feel free to do so. I've got the page watch-listed :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: no community consensus etc...[edit]

As I said, I'm closely following all relevant discussions. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume you are. --69.225.14.204 (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)