Commons:Bots/Requests/MGA73bot
MGA73bot
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually Assisted
Programming Language(s): Pywikipedia
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Maybe once a week (when needed).
Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y. Have botflag on dawiki (60,709 edits) and enwiki (a few edits)
Functions: Transfer images from Dawiki to Commons and maybe help cleanup in Category:Files moved from da.wikipedia to Commons requiring review if needed.
Discussion
I also thought that no botflag (or reguest) was needed if the bot only did a few edits - until reading Commons:Bots/Requests for flags/Hebbot. You can se the edits here: Special:Contributions/MGA73bot. --MGA73 (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seeing you're also using your bot to do some cleanup, a flag might be useful. Multichill (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Even if the bot operator is pretty sure the bot doesn't need a flag, we really appreciate it if the bot operator comes here and lets us know, so we can comment, and approve. Sometimes discussion will reveal that a flag is a good idea. And sometimes it will reveal, even when the operator thinks it's needed, that maybe it's better to run unflagged because we want to see the stuff in recent changes. So thanks for bringing this here, MGA73... appreciate it! PS: No objections to the bot itself, sounds useful to me. Agree with Multi that a flag might be good if you think it's going to be high volume non controversial stuff. ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is still 1,700 files on dawiki to be transferred (if license etc. is ok). I try to make the necessary edits before I transfer images to Commons. So cleanup/edits should be limited, but as you can see from the log sometimes errors do happen (templates on dawiki can't all be converted automatically) or I get a good idea to make things easier after images are transferred. --MGA73 (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Even if the bot operator is pretty sure the bot doesn't need a flag, we really appreciate it if the bot operator comes here and lets us know, so we can comment, and approve. Sometimes discussion will reveal that a flag is a good idea. And sometimes it will reveal, even when the operator thinks it's needed, that maybe it's better to run unflagged because we want to see the stuff in recent changes. So thanks for bringing this here, MGA73... appreciate it! PS: No objections to the bot itself, sounds useful to me. Agree with Multi that a flag might be good if you think it's going to be high volume non controversial stuff. ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think will be good idea to use separate accounts for uploading (without bot flag) and clean-up (with bot flag). SInce images are not categorized it'll be good idea to show them in recent changes for more processing. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. MGA73, consider creating a second account, and letting us know what it is here. No reason not to approve both with this same request though, and we'll mark them both approved in the archive. ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Deal. I will continue to upload without a botflag, and if I need to do cleanup again (or more than xx changes?) I will make a "friend" for MGA73bot :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have now made a "sister" for my bot: User:MGA73bot2
- I will use MGA73bot2 for edits on Commons and this bot should have a bot flag. Edits would be cleanup and categorization.
- I will use MGA73bot for filetransfer to Commons and this bot should not have a flag.
Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Done - MGA73bot2 has been flagged with the bot flag. MGA73bot has not been. Both are to be considered approved bots and you can reference Commons:Bots/Requests_for_flags/MGA73bot if there are any questions. We will archive this shortly. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)