User talk:SEWilcoBot


 * Inquiries should probably be done at User talk:SEWilco.
 * Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which makes it clear who said what, and when. Thank you.

Ick, converting inline webpages
I think it is bad idea to convert inline website references to footnotes. Breaks the common convention of people familiar with wikipedia and requires someone to make two clicks to get to the referenced material. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 06:10 (UTC)
 * Seems like something to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Footnote3. It is a syntax issue, as the bot could convert to other formats if they are preferred. (SEWilco 7 July 2005 06:24 (UTC))
 * Okay, I will be posting there. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 06:27 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I posted there too, but SEW told me to come back here! So: auto-converting the inlines doesn't help, and does harm, so I think its a bad idea. is it still ongoing? William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 18:02:58 (UTC).
 * I think there is a bot question there: "is it still ongoing?" The refbot is not running automatically, it is being used as a helper on individual articles.  The issue of what formats should be used for citations should be discussed elsewhere, as the bot is using existing formats and not inventing its own format.  There are links to several topics at User:SEWilcoBot. (SEWilco 8 July 2005 18:11 (UTC))

Main templates
The Main article: under each section is an encyclopedic standard. It is also used in World Book. Please do not change it to "For details see". 10:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC) "Main article: History of ABC" The "for details see" doesn't seem right. 10:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * References to Main which are not at the top of the article are being replaced with see details. Discuss the formatting of references in sections on the Talk page of that template.  The Main template is supposed to be used at the top of articles.   (SEWilco 10:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC))
 * But the world book encyclopedia has the following text just after the heading.

Per what I posted elsewhere, I request that you stop this batch "fixing" until the matter has been discussed and consensus has been reached in favor of your version. Fredrik | talk 10:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am fixing the type of link, not their appearance. Open a discussion about style at Template talk:See details.  (SEWilco 11:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC))
 * No one asked for this fix. Since virtually all instances of Template:Main are used "incorrectly", the correct action would be to change the stated purpose of the template to match its usage. (Now, since you do not intend to fix appearance, would you mind if I change the wording of Template:See details to be identical to that of Template:Main?) I have already opened a discussion about style at Template talk:See details. Fredrik | talk 11:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mind what you do to the wording, that is an issue to discuss there. You don't seem to have opened a style discussion there.  Click "+" at the top of that page to start a new section.  (SEWilco 11:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC))

Incorrect references
Your change from the main template to the see details tamplate is incorrect on many pages, in many cases it is actually a reference to the main article, not a details page. Please stop the bot. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In what cases? (SEWilco 15:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC))

Change discussion
My concern is that there is not a clear mandate for the change from Template:Main to Template:See details. At Template talk:Main, it is clear that there are people who don't see any need to chnage and who dispute that it should only be used at the top of the article. The discussion at Template talk:See details indicates that this change wasn't discussed there until after you started making it. It looks like the bot is not currently running - it would be politic to avoid starting it again without clear consensus to do so. (You might want to think about using the bot to reverse the change, actually, considering how many people are opposed to the change.) -Aranel (" Sarah ") 01:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There have been many complaints of improper use of Main. The change, and correcting Main being used outside the start of articles, was mentioned over a month ago in TfD.  (SEWilco 02:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

There is no consensus (or at least point me to it) to make the switch from main to see details. Please stop your bot, immediately. K1Bond007 02:33, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * There have been many complaints of improper use of Main. The change, and correcting Main being used outside the start of articles, was mentioned over a month ago in TfD.  (SEWilco 02:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC))
 * The bot is running semiautomatically, displaying and getting approval for changes. It is making a second pass because originally it was ignoring main references in the first 10 lines, but is now running with a 5-line limit because 10 lines was too far into the article due to how Wikipedia uses lines.  The present run is to clean up articles which are partially converted and have inconsistent usage.  Do you really want that stopped? (SEWilco 02:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Yes, please stop your bot immediately, and program it to revert all of the changes that it already has made to these articles. You cited the description of main's proper article location, but this has been corrected by the author (of both the template and the description) to reflect the actual, intended use.  (The original description was inadvertently misworded.)  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 03:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As requested by Lifeisunfair, I stopped the bot. Articles starting H-Z are most likely to be partly converted.  I will not make further changes until a new consensus is reached.  The conversion was based upon documentation and discussions based on the previous descriptions, and proper usage is now undefined.  (SEWilco 03:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC))
 * The proper use has been defined via eight months of consistent application. The disparate description was a simple typographical error (now corrected), and never was widely followed (nor should it have been).  Clearly, irrespective of documentation, a consensus has existed throughout the template's existence, and this should be respected until a "new consensus" emerges (which doesn't appear likely).  In other words, please program you bot to undo its recent work.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 03:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The old description was being followed, and is also reflected in the creation, usage, and discussion of similar templates created for usage in areas forbidden by the old description. (SEWilco 03:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC))
 * It's unfortunate that a handful of individuals allowed a minor typo to override common sense. &mdash;Lifeisunfair 04:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As part of a handful of individuals commenting today, you should reexamine the activity around the templates which are similar to Main. (SEWilco 04:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC))
 * I believe that much of this activity has been misguided. Apparently, no one even asked Eequor  to clarify the main template's intended application.  Instead, they treated an illogical typo as sacrosanct.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 04:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The description was in a table, where brevity and abbreviations are encouraged, and it looked OK in that context. Neither Eequor nor you corrected it until now, updated documentation in the Talk page, participated in misguided discussions, nor corrected the "misguided" discussion in Template for Deletion whose announcement was attached to the template a month ago.  WP:TFD is partly at fault for not encouraging user notifications.  Now let's tidy this up again.  (SEWilco 05:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC))
 * The erroneous instruction looked okay in the context of a table, but not in the context of the template that it described; Wikipedia has no system of hierarchies in the article namespace. Therefore, the tag can only be correctly applied to a specific section.  Unfortunately, I was entirely unaware of the situation (until your bot edited an article on my watchlist).  Indeed, let's tidy this up again, beginning with the reversal of your replacements.  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 05:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Backconversion done of articles which formerly were misusing Main but were using it properly under the new definition. (SEWilco 01:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC))
 * There was no "misuse." It was a bloody TYPO!  &mdash;Lifeisunfair 03:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon
Your robot is making changes as an anon IP address. See the Mumbai revert page. 05:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems to be happening very infrequently. That's the second report during several hours of running.  Its log is showing Wikipedia did not respond properly to the specific page, but the following page has no problem.  (SEWilco 05:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Apparently one of the standard bot tools is sometimes being recorded as being anonymous. This is being monitored and tested during the next run.  (SEWilco 18:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

signing in your bot
Can you please make sure your bot is signed in when it runs? I recently came across it running anonymously at 70.94.229.160 and blocked the IP because I wasn't sure it was a registered bot or not. Thanks. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 15:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The standard pywikipedia bot login is being used. Apparently sometimes edits are logged as anon, even some individual articles within a single run editing many articles.  No solution has been found by the group.  (SEWilco 16:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

Changing embedded links to footnotes
Your bot is again changing embedded links to footnotes against WP:CITE, and so has been briefly blocked. Did you get consensus anywhere to do this? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * SEWilcoBot is running under policy WP:V and adding citation details. Footnotes had been requested or suggested for many of the converted articles in which you recently removed reference information.  "Removal of references from articles is generally considered inappropriate."  (SEWilco 14:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC))


 * No, you are violating WP:CITE and there is nothing in WP:V that favors footnotes: quite the reverse, although all styles are allowed. Please stop doing this. Also, please let me know whether you want to discuss it here or on your talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:V favors additional details for citations. Footnotes is the best present way to connect to citations (and getting better).  (SEWilco 20:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC))


 * WP:V does not favor additional details. It asks that a Havard reference, embedded link, or numbered footnote be added after the edit, and then that full citation information be added in a References or Notes section. It asks for the same amount of information regardless of which citation style is used. Please stop misrepresenting what the policies and guidelines say. That footnotes are the best way to do this is your opinion only, and stems from your misunderstanding of how the other systems work. With respect, SEW, you didn't know what a Harvard reference was until quite recently, and I believe your lack of familiarity with other citation styles is the cause of the dispute. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've known quite well what a Harvard reference is. You're the one who gets confused between references, conceptual relationships, citations, and the visual representation of things.  And WP:FN is not only my opinion.  You're young and you learn noisily, good luck with all that.  (SEWilco 06:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

Note sublist
Your bot just messed up the references on the page Mercenary. Please removed Mercenary from you list. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice in the preview display that PMS had a sublist. Fixed it.  (SEWilco 09:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

No you did not "fix it". The fix you put in was to remove inline references and move them into the footnotes. IMHO in a specific case like this inline references are cleaner than placing them in the footnotes at the bottom because there is nothing to add in extra detail in the footnote and they end up cluttering the footnote list. Rather than get into a revert war with you over this, may I suggest that we colaborate on Extraordinary rendition which definatly could do with your help. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was referring to fixing the sublist, it just had to be moved to the new location of the parent note. And there certainly should be citations for those laws; there should be something which describes each law (I don't know whether the convention for that country includes title, author, year of passage, or other terms) so the law can again be found if renumbered or web site rearranged.  You figure out how to make Mercenary robust, I have other things to do.  Further discussions should be at User talk:SEWilco.  (SEWilco 16:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

RefBot
The reference and citations tasks have been moved to User:RefBot. (SEWilcoBot 09:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

This is a automated to all bot operators
Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated message to bot owners
As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Bot Policy: "Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds." Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 05:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)