User talk:RockfangBot

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


Music Project debannering[edit]

Hi. Are you removing all the Music Project banner code? If so that's great. As I was the nominator for the Tfd, I had asked User talk:IronGargoyle to do it with GargoyleBot, see here. Can I tell him his work is no longer needed? --Kleinzach 05:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I am removing the Music Project banner code. Someone else was at one point removing the same stuff as me, at the same time. I just moved to the middle of the list so we should be good for awhile. I'm not sure if they are still doing it or not though. If you want to tell IronGargoyle that he is no longer needed, it is fine with me. I'm good either way. I'll keep doing it.--Rockfang (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It's probably be less confusing if we leave this to you. I've told IronGargoyle that we don't need him after all. I don't know who else is working on it - I only picked up your edits on my watchlist. Best. --Kleinzach 06:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

oldprodfull[edit]

Your bot is adding blank templates. It seems to have stopped, but there's a problem here. I'm planning to revert all of them if I don't hear from you within 1/2 hour, as I can't see a possible use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is adding a blank template. It is doing that on purpose. The "use" is so that people know that the article has been previously prodded and shouldn't be prodded again.--Rockfang (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see the point. It's an error in the template, in that it should only produce one line if no information is provided. (I have doubts as to its value if information is provided, but it's been around for a while.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The template works fine in my opinion. I don't think it really matters if a blank template shows up on two lines. Also, if it is filled out, and the article goes to AfD later, an admin can tell at a quick glance why the article was prodded and why it was contested. I suggest leaving the template the way it is.--Rockfang (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. I think the template is unnecessary (if it doesn't have information) if the article is under AfD, but perhaps it should, instead be moved from the talk page to the AfD. Once an article has been through AfD, it can't be WP:PRODded again, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are free to revert whatever you want. I do 1 run a day with my bot for {{oldprodfull}}, so I won't readd it.--Rockfang (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to drop in uninvited, but as the author of {{Oldprodfull}}, I have to put in my 2¢ ... instead of "empty" instances, could the bot insert default dates using {{CurrentYYYYMMDD}}, like the stencil in the documentation? (Or does it do that already ... I haven't looked at an example recently. :-) Happy Editing! — 72.75.82.202 (talk · contribs) 21:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Because BAG required me to wait 7 days after the day is done to add {{oldprodfull}} to a talk page. See this. By the time my bot gets around to the article, the "current" template would be useless.--Rockfang (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! Copy that ... at any rate, can I assume that you subst: relevant dates in ISO 8601 format?
Regarding the seven day wait, that means the bot can only tag contested PRODs ... I had hoped that a bot would patrol Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed on a daily basis, and hang a "seconded" boilerplate using CurrentYYYYMMDD, which would be a "reasonably" correct assumption (i.e., "on or about today's date". :-) — 72.75.82.202 (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't subst the dates. I manually type them in. But I do indeed use the format you linked. And for the record, I did originally ask for what you said, but that got shot down as well.--Rockfang (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Bummer, dude ... maybe you could use the success of the current bot to re-open the 2nd-bot as an enhancement-or-new bot design? I don't know how this side of the bureaucracy works, and I'm not particularly interested in learning. <Sigh!> — 72.75.82.202 (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bots removing deleted image licensing templates[edit]

Hi. You removed a deleted image licensing template at Image:Josiah O. Wolcott.jpg, but unfortunately, you didn't replace the old template that had been there before someone replaced it with the more specific, but later deleted, template. That left the image unlicensed and subject to deletion later. It'd be better to not mindlessly remove deleted templates, leaving images completely unlicensed, if there had been a template there before that might still fit. In other words, this is something that might be better done by a human checker, not a bot. IMHO. —Cleared as filed. 19:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did not remove a deleted template. The template still existed at the time I removed it from the image you linked above. Note the time stamps of the deletion of the template and my edit to the image. Also, if you check out the TfD for the template, it was closed on July 19, 2008. In the TfD, Elcobbola said he/she would handle the replacement of the template on the related images. If you look at his image namespace contributions around the timeframe it appears as if he/she stopped replacing the template around July 22nd. I figured roughly 3 months was enough wait to have the template be orphaned finally.--Rockfang (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Rockfang. If you're curious, I had been waiting for the Commons version to be deleted (which didn't happen until 10. November). The minimal cleanup I did do in July indicated the task was too large and time consuming for one person, so I'd hoped I could round up some folks after the aforementioned closure (assuming, of course, that it would be more timely). If anyone is interested, I did write this page to assist cleanup. I also know Suntag had been doing some work regarding clean up of this template, as well. Regards, Эlcobbola talk 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your bot fixing Amazon links[edit]

When (if ever) was your bot approved to make edits like this?--Rockfang (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rock. My bot was approved back in March 2006, and at that point it was already compacting Amazon URLs as discussed here. The approval can be found here. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the info. In the future, replying on my bot's page probably isn't the best idea. Either your's (like you did), your bot's, or my talk page may have been better. Also, you may want to consider replying with your main account and not your bot account.--Rockfang (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Brigham Young University–Idaho[edit]

I have nominated Category:Brigham Young University–Idaho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Brigham Young University – Idaho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 03:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Brigham Young University–Idaho alumni[edit]

I have nominated Category:Brigham Young University–Idaho alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Brigham Young University – Idaho alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 03:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:White House Executive Chefs[edit]

Category:White House Executive Chefs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Media franchises articles[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Media franchises articles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gluons12 talk 14:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Armenian ombudsmen has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Armenian ombudsmen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)