That's quite sad :( . What do you wanna do to avoid this problem after a new bot is created/old is transferred to new owner? I mean you can't fight a 100 wikis, but you can say "take it or leave it". The Delinker having bot status on the other hand I think is counter-productive as lazy users don't get notified as visibly as they should, that a new picture should be found.
Also there was discussion that the Ticker wouldn't have to notify anymore of deletions. I oppose this, as it would make it may make it harder for admins to restore the image, if it was previously deleted from the local wiki. Also withouth the ticker finding the pages where the actions of the delinker need be reverted after such a restoration would be harder, without the Ticker giving a list of pages where it was used until the image file existed.
Dami
On 11/23/06, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com> wrote:
It was discontinued by its operator because individual wikis required the bot to get individual bot status approval. The creator was even asked on commons to get approval. The bureaucracy is overwhelmed him basically.
- Cool Cat
On 11/17/06, Bence Damokos <
bdamokos@gmail.com> wrote:
"and unlinking them [deleted images] is sometimes a serious pain" [copied from thread: Re: [Commons-l] Getting rid of "best before]
What is the status of the CommonsDelinker bot, why does it seem inactive? Was there a decision to stop it?
Bence Damokos
huwiki
On 11/17/06, Cool Cat <
wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe that is not happening due to technical limitations. Currently we just subst: current day/month/year. I would like that though.
It takes longer than 7 days because there are WAY too many of them to delete and unlinking them is sometimes a serious pain (pd-soviet images are particularly cluttering the backlog)
PS (unrelated): Magnus your tool has issues with .gif images I believe. I do not know if you fixed this recently.
PS (unrelated): If your tool would detect "http" (possible source) and treated such images differently it would be of great help since sometimes people forget to remove the no source template. (sometimes it is a hunt to find a url in a block of text on the tool)
On 11/15/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske@googlemail.com
> wrote:
When I just read about admins getting scolded for deleting an image
that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the
templates and the message they convey.
Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info"
etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes,
the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the
equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer
than that.
What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks
this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this
information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that
have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good
reason.
Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
image resurrection capability, should calm this.
Magnus
[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php
[2]
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robot_costs_200k.php
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l