User talk:Daniel78/Archive/2011

Polling templates

Hi Daniel!
This templates was used several times:

•  Support - {{Υπέρ}}
•  Oppose - {{o}}

Please add it to FPCbot processing.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi George, {{o}} should already be recognized by the bot, are you sure it's not working ? /Daniel78 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I not sure, it is old problem. All OK now? -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I added {{Υπέρ}} now. /Daniel78 (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel!
{{WSupport}} =  Weak support, new template. Please add it to FPCbot processing.
With best regards --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added it now. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel!
This new template was used several times now:

•  Support - {{s}} --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, added it now. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel!
This new template was used several times now, please add to bot processing:

•  Weak support - {{Weak support}}
  

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added it. I apologize for the time it took. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Constant early closing on FPC

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Futanari.png is constantly closed by the bot, even so the expiration date is much longer. --Niabot (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The bot looks at the creation date which is in June 2010. If you want proper handling of the bot you would have to create a new page. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can't he just use the date from the template? Would make more sense, since the first voting was forcible removed by a user. (Whatever reasons he had). Guess i will have to create a new Page and use this instead, after copying current votes. --Niabot (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

FPCbot questions

Hi Daniel,

May I ask you two questions about your FPCBot? (1) Does the bot consider the template FPD (denied nominations)?; (2) How does it deal with Weak and Strong Support/Oppose votes?

Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, no the bot does not know about the FPD at all. This is something I could look into adding. Maybe even the bot could add the template to nominations automatically. About strong/weak votes, the bot will treat them like normal votes. For example a weak oppose is the same as a strong oppose to the bot. /Daniel78 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that would be a good idea to deal with the FPD template. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

FPCbot och alternativ

När en alternativ bild väljs till FP verkar det som roboten markerar rätt bildalternativ med FP-mallen (tex. här), men den lägger fel bild i det kronologiska arkivet (samma exempel får fel alternativ i arkivet).
Dessutom saknas subpage-parametern i anropet av Template:Assessments, så länken till omröstningen funkar inte. Det är inte så svårt att fixa så här, men om roboten skulle kunna göra det själv vore det ännu enklare. /Ö 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nu fick jag äntligen tid att se på det här och jag har gjort en fix. Är inte säker på om det fungerar förrän vi har en ny kandidat med flera alternativ där ett av alternativen väljs. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

re-propose

Hi, do you think I can re-propose this image again for the featured picture? --Llorenzi (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Prevent FPCBot from reclosing discussions when its actions have been reverted

See, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pi-unrolled-720.gif. I think there should be a restriction on FPCBot to only allow it to edit each nomination page once. If it gets reverted by a human, there's probably a good reason for doing so. If the close was actually correct, it would be trivial for another human to re-revert. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The bot would then need to check every change back in time to see if the nomination was previously marked by itself and then see if any of the newer edits removed it. I think this would make the bot awfully slow. I think we should focus on the real problem here why a human had to revert the bot edit instead. And in this case it is the known reopening of a very old page. Personally I think that it should not be done, we should not remove the history of old votes and overwrite with a new nomination, better to create a new nomination page. But this still happen of course and it would be good if the bot still handled it. The solution would be to parse the date in the text, but it's tricky to have a date parser that can handle all sort of ways a human can write a date in. It would likely fail just as often as people revive old nominations. A workaround for these cases could be a template that told the bot to not touch this nomination anymore. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)