Until further notice is given, no further bots will be approved. The general consensus is that the number of active bots (about 9 - total of 20 approved bots), compared to the number of articles (103 300) and the number of active and semi-active users (about 20-30) is more than sufficient. We will notify you if and when the situation changes. Thank you. Anrie 10:49, 11 Julie 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure, if I understand it well. I want to run bot here, but if is it your wish, it can run without flag too but only for some specific things like until. It's necessary for me to run it on all languages, when I am solving some problematic interwiki. (that was very big problem with closed mo:wiki, where was some bad links and the only solution was to remove mo: link from all languages (sometimes 100+).
- We would prefer that you do not run your bot at all, but rather fix the "specific things" manually. Running a bot without a bot flag tends to fill up the "recent changes" page, making it easier for vandals to go unnoticed. Allowing your bot to run a flag would also be unfair to the other bot owners whose bot's aren't allowed to run unflagged. Anrie 14:55, 11 Julie 2007 (UTC)
Protest against blocking[wysig bron]
It seems you not understand the principes of interwiki bot :-( Yes, I promised, I will run bot only for problematic pages. Yesterday I wanted to end solving interwiki for Germany bundeslandes, because there was some problematical articles. I was doing articles about months in current events (e. g. may 2006, april 2004). The easiest way to do it is to take whole category or all links from some template. If you see my contributions () you can notice, that mostly all articles were from this two categories (templates), only the last two (CNN + Ceres) were from normal bot's run. I can only run bot with some parameters, so I usually run with whenneeded:3, it means that bot will change page only if there is some mistake (non-existing or another interwiki) or where are 3 or more interwikis missing. If You thing, that 12 contributions in 7 hours is too much.. (My usually number of contributions per day you can see here:). Now, if there is any interwiki problem in af: in my-solved-articles, it's your fault, yhat there would'nt be repaired.
- Your bot has been blocked after a recent string of edits, after it has been requested that the bot isn't run anymore. Anrie 08:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please refrain from running your bot for the time being. Minimal edits will be overlooked, i.e. less than ten edits per hour, but we can't have you dominating the recent edits page. Anrie 10:34, 1 Oktober 2007 (UTC)
Bot edits[wysig bron]
Could you please explain these edits?
-  The removed page still exists, so why the removal?
-  If the Hebrew Wikipedia organises dates by decade, there is no reason I can think of why an interwiki link from af:979 shouldn't go to he:970 - the link isn't wrong. Anrie 12:02, 1 Oktober 2007 (UTC)
- In the first case, pge still exists, but now is not about year, but about decade and has completely different interwiki.
- In the second case, you can see, how mismatched interwiki was because of he:. Now might be all right. JAnDbot 16:29, 4 Oktober 2007 (UTC)
- In the first case, whether the linked page is about the year or the decade makes little difference: we do not have a page about the decade, but for the year, an Afrikaans user who is viewing af:990 will have to visit he:990 to het the same information in Hebrew, thus the interwiki is right and should not have been removed.
- The same holds true for the second case: the page still exists, but redirects to the decade page. Why should it have a different interwiki? This wikipedia does not have a page about the decade. The interwiki link from af:979 should go to he:970 if that is where the reader will find the information on the year 979. Anrie 18:04, 4 Oktober 2007 (UTC)
Your wikipedia is only one of 250 Wikipedias. Is not possible to leave incrrect lik in any language, because all interwiki bots would report error since is it removed. This is like We haven't article about Berlyn, but is noticed in Duitsland, so we can leave interwiki to en:Berlin in this article. JAnDbot 05:31, 16 Oktober 2007 (UTC)
- No, it is like "We don't have an article about Berlin, but it is mentioned in "Germany", so we leave an interwiki to "Germany#Berlin" - I have seen this done countless times and it makes sense. Anrie 06:08, 16 Oktober 2007 (UTC)