|Ce robot est uniquement destiné à faire des interwikis.|
|Dresseur : Vargenau|
|Date d'autorisation : 7 septembre 2006|
|Laissez vos commentaires sur ma page de discussion. Merci.|
|This robot is only used to make interwiki links.|
|Authorization date: 7 September 2006|
|Please leave your comments (in French or English) on my French talk page. Thank you.|
- 1 2006
- 2 Interwiki
- 3 This is a automated to all bot operators
- 4 Interwiki links on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval
- 5 Automated message to bot owners
- 6 ANI Notice
- 7 June 2009
- 8 March 2010
- 9 Tour de France classifications
- 10 Illuminati
- 11 Christmas
- 12 Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
- 13 feedback
- 14 Brussels
- 15 Fire salamander
- 16 Removal
- 17 ArbCom elections are now open!
- It is also adding invalid interwiki the English Réveillon article has nothing to do with Réveillon (Orne).--Boffob 01:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- blocked again. Please supervise your bot. pschemp | talk 02:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a automated to all bot operators
Automated message to bot owners
As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:
Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.
Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 02:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Escarbot. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Escarbot misbehaving. Thank you. --Farix (Talk) 20:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have blocked the bot per the ANI notice above. Please get the issue fixed. bibliomaniac15 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Category:Egyptian actors, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The edit summary is filled by the interwiki bot. Removing pt: is correct, it does not exist. fr: was changed from actresses to actors, an wad removed because it was about actresses.
Tour de France classifications
Hi, I reverted the bot's deletion of interwiki's re Tour de France classifications. In general: the words "general classification" and "yellow jersey" are perfect synonyms and so good links. Also, the bot did not provide any argument. Now I acted on the English WP. If this disturbance is on every wiki, please revert all of them. -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Could be OK, in French. But in the other languages, they are the right synonyms. Did you revert? -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The bot seems to be on a cross-wiki spree removing valid iw-links in this article. I have reverted it on da-wiki and en-wiki (and now fr-wiki). Please fix this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The bot-action is correct. In French you have:
All interwikis are consistent after bot edit.
- It is not a correct removal. You have removed almost all iw-links to the Danish Wikipedia article on Illuminati. Just because there is a partition of articles on French Wikipedia, it should not mean that you remove all corresponding iw-links to other projects. Since en-wiki (and most other wikis) does not have their articles on Illuminati partitioned in this way, the correct iw-link for those that does is to link the main article (the ones on Bavarian illuminati) to the main article on the other projects. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Interwikis have to be consistent, i.e. the transitive closure of an article should contain only one instance of a given language. This was not the case before my bot modifications. It is the case after. You are of course free to make modifications that respect this rule.
- You are misinterpretating how interwiki works. It should not be internationally consistent, because various wikipedias have various ways of sorting their articles. Yes, because the fr-wiki has 3 articles related to Illuminati it should sort its iw differently, but it does not mean you should then go and remove all iws in the Danish and Polish articles because you have changed the sorting on French Wikipedia, it should only modify the French iw in those articles to correspond with the changes done on fr-wiki, not delete perfectly valid iw-links to other Wikipedias that has corresponding articles to the Danish and Polish ones.
- The iws should in all Wikipedias link to the closest related article on other Wikipedias. In Danish Wikipedia and in the Polish Wikipedia, where there are separate articles on the Bavarian Illuminati and the conspiracy theories, it means the main article, in both cases the ones on the Bavarian illuminati, should link to the single article on Illuminati that most other Wikipedias have (including en-wiki, which is why they should link to the Illuminati article).
- And no, I am not free to modify because the bots just reverts my reversions of your bot. So kindly put a leash on it, and undo you iw modifications on all other Wikipedias regarding this article, except the French one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I am operating my bot since mid-2006, with more than 6 million interwikis updated, so I must have some basic understanding how interwikis work.
Of course, interwikis must be consistent (transitive closure of an article should contain only one instance of a given language). If not, bots cannot work. Please try to understand this.
Situation before my bot edits: inconsistant interwikis.
Situation after your reverts: inconsistant interwikis.
What you wanted, but failed to explain, is that you want that da:Illuminati (Bayern) be linked, not to the transitive closure of [[fr::Illuminés de Bavière], but to the transitive closure of en:Illuminati.
This is what I meant by You are of course free to make modifications that respect this rule.
I have now made this modification with my bot.
The situation is constitent and should by OK for you.
Escarbot please don't change hy:Սուրբ Ծնունդ to hy:Նավասառդ, as Navasard was the pagan Armenian New Year, that was celebrated in Augustus. And Surb Tznund is Christmas, so don't change.Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was
true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to
false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.
Please do not remove Estonian wikilink et:Pealinna Brüsseli piirkond. This article is about Brussels Capital Region. As is article Brussels in English Wikipedia. --Metsavend (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Removed interwikis belong to Common minke whale. Regards, Vargenau (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)