User talk:Hagerman

	Archives My inactive conversations are routinely archived. Please select a date range to view my history:
	8/3/2006 - 8/8/2006 8/9/2006 - 8/19/2006 8/20/2006 - 9/6/2006 9/7/2006 - 11/4/2006 11/5/2006 - (Dates are expressed as MM/DD/YYYY)

Please click here to leave me a new message.

This is the talk page for Hagerman.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (`~~~~`). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Hagerman/Archive/Archive 01. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Thanks

What was that all about? Wavy G 05:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure, did you do anything to upset him? I just happened to notice because the edit he made was unsigned :). Best, Hagerman^(talk) 05:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never even seen him before. I checked his edit history, and he doesn't even appear to have edited any of the articles I frequent. Oh well, no problem. Just gave me a little scare for a second. Thanks again. Wavy G 08:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unsigned

Hi, actually I did sign, but no problem [1]. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. I just added the functionality for my bot to sign WP:AIV pages and it malfunctioned. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what happened is that after I copied the template, I removed the "--" that is before the ~~~~ since my sig already has hyphens in it. Since it was a little different than the norm (my sig doesn't have a space between the hyphens and my sig), maybe the bot didn't recognize the sig. Cool bot though, all these bots really do help out the project automating the mindless stuff. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should automatically recognize a signature regardless of the -- (I personally don't use them either :-) ). The problem was that I added a condition to search WP:AIV and forgot to tell the bot to look for a signature before adding the unsigned template for those pages. It appears to be working now, though. Thanks! (Going to see if it catches this unsigned comment) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hagerman (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

HagermanBot

Hi. Nice bot you've got there. That'll certainly help on my userpage, I'm forever having to sign people's comments for them – Gurch 03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) Hagerman^(talk) 03:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool bot! It worked perfectly. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a talk page comment, realized I'd left it unsigned as soon as I hit "save", went back, and your bot had already tagged it. You're running it unbelievably fast. Any chance you can set it to give a 30-second grace period before signing posts or something so I don't feel so inadequate? :) Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about putting a delay on the inserting of the unsigned comment, however, I felt it might result in more edit conflicts. Currently, the bot signs the comment 3-5 seconds after it was left (depending on Wikipedia's response time). If someone leaves a comment on my talk page while I'm browsing, I might already be inserting my reply before 30 seconds has expired. When I go to save, since HagermanBot put in the unsigned comment, there is now an edit conflict. You can see the dilemma :-). Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 17:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. cool bot. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had quoted an article on my Talk page (three indents), then reverted to the indent level of my personal comments (two indents) to sign my post - and the bot added the unsigned template (diff). I see where the bot got confused, but it was slightly annoying. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, if you have any suggestions on how to improve the behavior to prevent that I'm will<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">ing to try it. Because you broke up the insertion of your comment into seven edits, the bot mistakenly asssumed one of those edits (which met all of its criteria) was a new comment. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 17:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make the bot do my talk page as well. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to do anything special to make it work for a specific talk page. It should notice any unsigned comments on any talk page automatically and sign them accordingly. Keep in mind it will only work for comments that have been left after it went into operation, it can't go back and plug in signatures for old comments. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 18:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at your talk page, there was a comment left recently that should have gotten a signature but didn't because the bot was busy signing another comment at the same time and missed the event where your talk page was edited. I'm going to run the process to edit a page on a seperate thread and see if that clears it up. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's now running all edit checks in a seperate thread so it can process multiple edits simultaneously. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please disable this bot, or at least give it a delay of an hour or so. The instant response causes an edit conflict every time I attempt to remove unsigned trolling/vandalism to talk pages. — CharlotteWebb 18:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot serves a very useful purpose, so I don't intend to disable it. Perhaps we can come up with a compromise. Zetawoof had suggested a 30 second delay, which is reasonable. However, as I stated above, I think a delay will actually result in more edit conflicts. Would you mind taking this discussion to Requests for Bot Approval so that we can get the opinion of some other users in the process? Hagerman^(talk) 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove this bot from checking my contributions, or remove it from my talk page? SchmuckyTheCat 08:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you don't wish to take advantage of the bot, just put  somewhere on your talk page and it will stop checking. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 08:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this bot. It worked great on my talk page today. Saved me the time of dragging out the "unsigned" template and checking the history to see who was complaining this morning. — coelacan talk — 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you enjoy it! Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#if

The bot leaves superfluous code fragments from the substed parser function in the template. Since human convenience isn't an issue here, could you find a workaround for this? Femto 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. It now no longer uses the unsigned template. Instead it places the equivilent output of a substed unsigned template without the #if component. Thanks! (I'll leave this unsigned as a test of the new signing method) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hagerman (talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yea!

Yea! Hagerman Bot! It's annoying when people don't sign posts. Thanks for helping out :) Cyberia23 05:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree! :-) Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delay

I just went back to sign my comment and this bot had done it already for me - perhaps you could add a small delay mechanism that gives users a little time to realize their mistake and correct it themselves? Thanks, Richard001 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up for discussion on bots for approval based on some comments I received above and I haven't received any feedback yet. By design the bot doesn't have a delay because I felt it would cause too many edit conflicts when another editor went to reply. The quicker we can add the signature, the less likely the user is to get to an edit screen before the changes are made. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi - great bot idea - really helps out :) I've just got a slight concern about it adding a sig to null edits (like this. Perhaps you could get it to recognise "null edit" in the edit summary and not leave the template? Thanks M a rtinp23 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! It's supposed to catch null edits, but I see where it's failing on that example. Let me make the changes and recompile... Hagerman^(talk) 13:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've released a new version that addresses that issue. :-) It doesn't depend on any special edit summary, it will just recognize that adding a bullet doesn't justify a signature. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unwanted signatures

HangermanBot keeps adding my signature when I have not signed with the normal four tilde signs. I usually just sign by typing my username and I prefer it that way. However, this Bot keeps appearing and adding another signature. I find that ann<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">oying. How do I make it stop? -Sensemaker

~~I'll make it so that if the bot recognizes your username in your edit it won't make a modification. Let me recompile the bot... Hagerman^(talk) 13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~You should be good now. Please let me know if you have any problems. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Won't complying with this wish undermine the purpose of having signatures with a time stamp? -- Fyslee 14:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely. My initial reaction was for the requesting user to create a custom signature without a link so it still looked the same, but added a timestamp, or to put 5 tildes after writing their name to get a timestamp. I'm glad you said something to help justify my initial reaction. I'll revert those changes now. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 14:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! In my experience, users who deliberately don't use standard sigs are often those how are also engaged in behavior that attempts to contravene one of the things that makes Wikipedia work -- openness. (I am not accusing the user above of this behavior!) All our actions here should be open and above board, and capable of verifiability checks by other editors. The re-creation of the exact sequence of events in a discussion is essential. You've got a great bot here, and I wish you luck with it. -- Fyslee 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very insightful! Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 14:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I am engaged in behaviour that goes contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. If you are not accusing me of this, when why do you want to disallow me the ability to opt out. If you are accusing me of such things, I fail to see what difference the bot would make. As long as I am logged in as Sensemaker, my actions can easily be traced anyway. I politely request that Hangerman turn his bot off for me. I was under the impression that he wanted to provide a genuine service to users who forget to sign occasionally (we can all be a bit absent-minded until we make a habit of it) -not force something unwanted upon those who expressly ask not to have it. Therefore the ability to opt out would be proper and respectful to the editors. I am sad to notice that he is hesitating in this matter but hope that he will not turn my request down. -Sensemaker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I am definitely not accusing you of anything wrong. You must have your reasons for doing as you do. You can customize your signature so it automatically gets added in the format you wish, with the time stamp. The crucial part is the time, not the signature itself. Talk pages get pretty hairy sometimes, and it can be very frustrating when time stamps are missing. It makes it much more difficult to figure out an edit history when that piece of information is missing. If you use a customized signature, the bot shouldn't touch it, but if it doesn't have the time for the edit, you would still be cheating other editors of a vital bit of information. -- Fyslee 17:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee, I fail to make sense of a message that starts "I am definitely not accusing you of anything wrong" and ends with "you would still be cheating other editors of a vital bit of information." I must respectfully request that you either stop saying you not are accusing me of doing anything wrong or actually stop accusing me of doing anything wrong. Please make up you mind.

Concerning your emphasis on the advantages of the bot I am sure that it might be somewhat convenient for you or others to use this bot to sign everything I write. However, I have now specifically requested to not have it implemented against my will. I would not force something upon you that you expressly said you did not want for my convenience. Now I humbly request that the same basic courtesy be extended to me. -Sensemaker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I see you are from Sweden, and I'm an American living in Denmark. Maybe my choice of words is confusing to you, but I am not personally accusing you, I'm just stating how it can be perceived by others. When I write "cheat", I don't mean to accuse you of deliberately doing something wrong (in an ethical or criminal sense), but that others may feel cheated, whether that is your intention or not. Others need that information, and your actions are denying them of it, hence they may feel that you are cheating them of the information. There is a subtle difference, and it may not be understandable to people who don't have English as their mother tongue. If Hagerman wants to make an exception for you, then let him do it, but he will be ignoring the needs of other editors if he does it. If your edits are ever involved in any type of controversy, it will be unnecessarily difficult to sort things out without that information.

Will you please explain why you wish to deviate from standard practice here? -- Fyslee 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to deviate from standard practice. It was standard practice that people could sign their articles anyway they wanted to. Now you want to change the standard practice so that this is no longer possible. The person who argues for a change should have the burden of proof. If he wishes to impose his changes on people who really do not want them and expressly say so he or she must make a very strong case that imposing this change on an unwilling subject is warranted. I fail to see any significant benefit of the change and strongly dislike having them imposed on me for reasons of personal preferrences. I am not at ease discussing personal matters with complete strangers whose names I do not even know. Particularly not when such a discussion would be subject to a permanent, public record of which I have no control. I believe I shall have to respectfully ask you and Hnagerman to respect my wishes on this subject, just like I would respect yours if the situation was the opposite.

I have not been involved in anything I would consider a controversy. I have had a rather lengthy discussion over a minor piece of editorial but we did just fine without any bot adding stuff in my name against my will.

Once again, I would not try to impose a new order on you or force you to sign your name in a certain way if you expressly said that you did not want to do so. Please extend the same basic courtesy to me. -Sensemaker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The basic way to continue signing your comments by hand, but to avoid having the bot sign your comment, is by putting in ~~~~~ after you type your name. 5 tildes will produce a timestamp, like this: 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC). This is what the bot is looking for in a signature. I realize that signing posts is not a rule, but merely a guideline (and considered good etiquette). If you don't wish to sign posts normally, you are free to break the etiquette. One of the features that I've mentioned on the bot description is that you are able to disable the bot on a one-time basis by placing !NOSIGN! somewhere in your edit summary. You will need to do this each time to override the automatic signature. However, I implore you to consider signing correctly to make your comments easier to interpret to other editors. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, you can sign your edits (or not) how you like, on the other it is quite acceptable for another user to add either the userid, time or both to a talk edit which doesn't conatin them. Nonetheless it might be worth allowing users to opt out of an automatic system - with an opt out list on a WP page (the technical details will be obvious to you)- after all everything is in history. This is part of the "bots are better behaved than people" mentality whihc is needed to avoid botophobia. Rich Farmbrough, 18:22 6 December 2006 (GMT).

Very true. That sounds like a great idea. I'll implement those changes this evening. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've implemented an opt out procedure. Thanks again, Hagerman^(talk) 03:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, an opt out option was all I was asking for. A sensible but persistant appeal to a gentleman's sense of decency and reciprocity almost always succeeds. I am glad it did so in this case too. I have done a simple test and it seems to have worked. Thank you. -Sensemaker

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot

Hi! I'm rather into the whole bot thing, and I like programming, I've been hoping for a bot for unsigned comments for a while, could I take a look at him just to see how it was done, and possibly for use on a non-wikimedia project?(if you agree of course) Thanks! ST47Talk 22:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Let me put in some more comments and I'll post his source code to the HagermanBot user page later tonight. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 23:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the application has a couple of dependencies, I'm going to post the code on SourceForge. I've requested a new account, as soon as its added, I'll advise you on your talk page. Thanks again for your interest, Hagerman^(talk) 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks :) (will the bot autosign this even though there's a blank line?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ST47 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

EEP!

So I forget to sign my comments. I've always found them and have corrected them, but this time you caught me. x_X Oh well. Thanks! Nifty bot this be. :) -WarthogDemon 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! :-) Hagerman^(talk) 02:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot again

Your bot signed an addition of mine to Talk:Tenedos; the addition of one bullet point to a list of bullet points, duly signed at the end. This is unhelpful. I suppose it is the sort of thing which will be hard to avoid; but do try. There are plenty of reasons to make such edits; and no reason for a bot to criticize them. Septentrionalis 04:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting the error. Based on your example, I imagine the best corrective action would be for the bot to look through the remainder of the section which is being edited and locate the next signature (if there is one). Then, compare the username from that signature to the user who made the edit. If they match, don't sign. I'll try to get that change rolled out tonight. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 04:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem has been corrected. The addition of new lines in a section will not sign a comment if the next signature in the section is by the same user. Thanks again, Hagerman^(talk) 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; a related problem would be stuff that is intended to be unsigned, like the recommended format in WP:RM. I'm not sure how that can be handled; in that case there is intended to be a signiature, but it will usually be in a different edit. Septentrionalis 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that includes a template, by design, will not be parsed by HagermanBot. So, I believe any Requested Moves edits will be handled correctly by the bot. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 06:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RM and consider any of the recent move discussions. Most don;t include the {{move}} template in the same edit or section; and many do include an unsigned addition of

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

That appears to have worked. :-) Hagerman^(talk) 23:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks - must be getting late. NorCalHistory 06:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was my bot that put in the comment :-) Hagerman^(talk) 06:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot on the Help Desk?

I've been testing your bot (thanks, bot, for signing a message someone else left on my talk page); I'd like to request that you run it on the Help Desk as well as the other Wikipedia-space pages you use, if that's feasible. (It will save having to go into the history to find a user's contribs and therefore what that user is talking about). --ais523 11:22, 6 December 2006 (U T C)

Sounds like a good idea. I'll make the modifications to the bot later tonight. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when...

... has your bot been active? You signed my talk page! Thanks. (Patstuart, not signing, just to test you). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patstuart (talk • contribs) 12:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Anyway, maybe you could get the bot to work on some WP namespaces with serious no signage problems. I'm specifically thinking the Help Desk and Reference Desks. There's more of a problem on those than any talk page I know (also, there's never a case when comments shouldn't be signed on those. -Patstuart^talk|edits 1:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been active since December 3, 2006. Based on your feedback and ais523, I'll make the changes to the configuration tonight to support the Help Desk and Reference Desks. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great

This bot is great! I get a lot of comments on my talk page from vandals who rarely ever sign. This bot means I don't have to check the history each time. Thanks a lot! James086^{Talk | Contribs} 14:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just realised this is your talk page, not the bot's. Your bot is great!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I award you Hagerman the da Vinci Barnstar for making such a cool bot which saves me a lot of time. James086^{Talk \| Contribs} 14:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :-) My first barnstar! Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 14:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot

Real cool bot!! I have a question. I have set my preferences so that I don't see bot edits in my watchlist. Why then do I see Hagermanbot oh so frequently?? — Lost^(talk) 16:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! The bot is currently approved for operation, however, a bot flag hasn't been granted by a buereaucrat yet. Once the flag has been granted it should not appear in your watchlist. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

I like the idea. However like many people I am in the habit of quickly re-opening an edit to sign if I forget, or put the wrong number of tildes. Whether we'll get used to the bot doing it for us, or there should be a 20 second delay, I can't decide. Good work, regardless. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12 6 December 2006 (GMT).

Well, the reason the bot reacts so quickly is to prevent the chance of an edit conflict. Since the bot makes the edit about a second after the save button is clicked, it's highly unlikely that another user will begin editing the page inbetween. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 23:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above about an opt-out list, you could have an opt-in list, which gives the bot permisssion to (actually) sign on behalf of foregetful editors! I'd sign up to that. Rich Farmbrough, 18:26 6 December 2006 (GMT).

Good idea! Expect to see that in the next release! Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 23:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quick!

You're a bit quick! I didn't sign my comment, realised, and tried to put it on, but it was already there! :-) Keep it up! Dr Santa 19:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Hagerman^(talk) 23:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice!

This is one awesome bot. :) --Ixfd64 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) Hagerman^(talk) 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online

Hi! I also have a little online button at the top like you, but I dont know hwo to change the pic. Please can you show me how to change my button pic to your nicer shiner one. Thanks a million. p.s. check out this new template I just made, your opinions please. FrummerThanThou 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I went ahead and updated the images for you. What I did was open your User:FrummerThanThou/StatusChange2 page and change the [[Image:]] tags to reflect the images that I use.

About the template modification, I like the visual look of the design you created. However, I think that the term lead paragraph is incorrect. It should be lead section as the leading section can include up to four paragraphs for very large articles. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 02:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what gets watched?

I've just encountered your bot, at Talk:Irish dance. Aside from seeing it in use, is there any way to determine if a page is being watched by the bot? (deliberately unsigned, as a test) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argyriou (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Is there a way to make sure the bot is monitoring a page? There are some talk pages I watch which have not had your bot watching them. Argyriou (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot description lists the pages it monitors. Currently, the pages it's watching are all talk pages (including User talk, Wikipedia talk, Portal talk, etc.), WP:AN, WP:AIV, WP:AfD, and WP:DRV. Based on some feedback I received earlier today, I'll be adding the help and reference desks.

Due to an error in the framework that the bot uses to parse the wiki content, it currently doesn't monitor any pages with an ampersand in them. There were some issues relating to threading in the version that its been running until a few minutes ago. I've looked at the code to the framework and it turns out that the edit functionality is static. If you aren't familiar with object-oriented programming, static methods are accessed independently of an instantiated object, thus disabling the ability to process multiple edits on seperate threads. I've implemented a message queueing system which should correct that issue.

In simplified terms, previously if two people left an unsigned post at the exact same time, only one got changed. It's fixed now because all changes enter a queue and the process that edits the pages handles that editing queue.

Hope this helps. Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 03:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little curious - what accounts for the bot missing comments like this one, where I added unsigned2 by hand nearly an hour later? Oh - The edit must either create a new heading or exist as an indent under an existing heading, which accounts for another example from yesterday, too. I wonder if perhaps that rule ought to be relaxed, as I suspect many unsigned comments are placed by people who aren't familiar with how to sign or indent properly. That may account for me not noticing your bot until tonight, even though I've been adding unsigned template stuff for a while now. Argyriou (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually planned in phase two of the bot. I've been closely watching edits like those to try to determine a pattern that I can use to make certain that its a comment and not the expansion of an existing comment or just a formatting change. I hope to come up with something in the next couple of weeks. Also, on that edit, even if they created a new section, it wouldn't have added it because the user removed a line near the top. The bot only looks at edits where nothing was deleted. Since the bot only came online on December 3, that's probably why you haven't seen it previously. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you've given me an idea. If a user adds lines to a section that already contains at least one signature and the next signature (if there is one) in the section is not for that user, then add the unsigned template. I'm going to try it out tomorrow evening. Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also add WP:BOTREQ to the list of pages? ST47Talk 11:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Your bot is so cool, but I forgot to sign a page and he fixed it right as I was. Is it OK to delete his and add mine? He did it to me here [[2]] WikiMan53 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More props

Great bot! Thanks! FreplySpang 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot out of control

Stop this bot from ruining wikipedia, please. Thank you. BonniePrinceCharlie 20:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Vandal Bot

I recently received a warning for allegedly vandalising this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_Struggle

I have never benn on this article, and as your name was on the warning, i thought i would just inform you that there may be a problem with antivandal bot, it also may be because someone is using my IP address possibly?

Regards, Jshaw