User talk:RobotGMwikt

If this is a bot, why isn't it running as a bot? it's filling up recent changes, even when "hide bots" is selected.

I have the same grievance. Please stop running this bot until it has official bot status. I do approve of the work it is doing but we have specific bot support to keep Recent changes useful and it's very important that it be used. If there is no response I will ask on IRC and may even block this user for a short time. — Hippietrail 06:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know GerardM personally and I will ask him to request bot status before continuing on the English Wiktionary. Do we have a page to do so?

I think it's good to have a bot do some work while visible on recent changes before it gets bot status. But now it does get in the way. Polyglot 10:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was good to have a bunch of say 20 or so, but now it's a bit too much. The place to get bot status is on meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions — Hippietrail 13:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are right. It seems he got a bit carried away... I don't think he will get bot status for that account before it has been 'voted' upon over here. If you have a look at that page, I believe it says that the English Wiktionary is not clear yet about the policy for bots. So I think it needs to be discussed over here first. Then he can refer the person who can change the account status to that discussion and its outcome. Polyglot 14:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As you may know I have asked over a week ago for bot status. Nobody objected and nobody commented. I have said that I will announce new functionality a week in advance. This in contrast to all other bot operators. I was under the impression that there was a bug in RC because of observations on another wiktionary. GerardM 15:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi,
FYI, RobotGMwikt is now registered as a bot on the en:wiktionary. GerardM 18:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, could you persuade your robot to leave pages in the Appendix namespace alone? Kappa 00:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to take a look at this: [1]. Now, I certainly do not know a whole lot about bots and how they work, but it seems to me that this edit was in error. I'll revert it, but you may want to take a look at your bot. If I'm making a mistkake, I apologize. Cerealkiller13 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are more of these I found yesterday, while fixing some Han characters. How can it do this?

More to the point, how do we find you in a timely way? Robert Ullmann 11:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The bot is presently removing a lot of valid links. It is confused? Robert Ullmann 11:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Over the past week, this bot has removed a fairly large number of valid interwiki links, and I can't fingure out why. For example, in this edit, the bot removed a link to pl:room from the page for room. Why? --EncycloPetey 06:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

We want to link to content on the FL wikts, respecting their policy on page titles for particular spellings, idiomatic forms, and possible errors. These should not, and must not, be removed.

Additions are welcome. Robert Ullmann 00:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

When an interwiki points to a redirect, and it is for any of the things you mention, you forget the notion of homonymy. A word that is in "need" of a redirect may be correct in another language. Consequently creating interwiki links to redirects gives the idea that the word exists and is considered correct while in actual fact it is not. Thanks, GerardM 06:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

After some discussion on IRC, User:GerardM pointed out that he is not able to alter the bot's behavior, either to not remove links to redirects for en wikt edits, or to exclude en wikt from the list of wikts where the bot edits, because this would require modifications to the code, which is out of his scope. In lieu of this he has stopped the bot from running altogether. He also disagrees with the en wikt link policy for redirects, but that is not a technical issue. ArielGlenn 07:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is an incomplete and a POV reflection of what was said. ArielGlenn was not able to argue why the existing policy makes sense, he even suggested that it should be revisited. The only argument left was that policy says .... So Wiktionary is not where you may be bold.. The whole notion that the alternative would be that the bot would otherwise be blocked is for convenience sake forgotten. As I understand that there are other bots now doing the interwiki work I find that this discussion is therefore largely immaterial.

Problem is that people from other wiktionaries disagree on this last one.. GerardM 07:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It should be noted that bot runner refuses to answer questions about the technical capability of the code. Further, the code is apparently not available for documentation and review, as strictly required by policy in WT:BOTS. Robert Ullmann 09:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is utterly wrong. It is plain what software I use I have stated this often enough. Thanks GerardM 09:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Then what is it? You said Andre Engels changed it (interwiki.py? or something else?) for you; availability of the resulting code is required. Robert Ullmann 09:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

As it has always been committed to the code repository, there is no issue as far as I am concerned. GerardM 09:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply