Template talk:Bot block

Shadowphoenix's Revert
I added no harmful content, and the content was useful. This is not userspace. She has no right, apart from the fact that she can, to revert it. Discuss plix? &mdash; Warw/Wick 19:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The template is BASEPAGENAME not BASEPAGENAMEE; that is why i reverted it -- Shadowphoenix  19:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * BASEPAGENAMEE gives an underscore instead of a space- Better for using things such as web links. I'll re-revert, since you didnt understand what it did. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 19:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The template works fine with BASEPAGENAME, there is no reason to add an extra E -- Shadowphoenix  19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, but it works better, especially if you're using it as part of an underscore- For instance, in a web link itself. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 19:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop the bickering, it's pathetic. The both have no obvious effect when used within the wiki. However, it would be safer to use BASEPAGENAMEE because the link is taken through the URL rather than a wiki link, where the software takes care of the spaces and underscores. So yeah, the extra E could be of some use; even if it isn't though, it doesn't change a thing. --R.Phalange 19:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not bickering, I was only saying it is a bit redundant. -- Shadowphoenix  19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are bickering. The pair of you are being pathetic. Lord of all tyria 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Though self contradictory, I agree with loat. We're being pathetic and bickering. I'll stop. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * May I just note that some people may not know that? :|. Notifying the bot on its talk page would be more effective than blocking it oturight :| &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 19:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Owner Option
I'm not going to be using the template any time soon, so I'd rather leave it to the users to implement the actual details, but here are two suggestions:
 * 1) Change the AWB option to TP, because it means TalkPage Notice. Other types of bots may use that mechanism.
 * 2) Put another option in for owner. MayBot would use  and the template would generate and link the "This is May" notice from that. It'd impress on every user that the owner should be listed on the page (if the parameter is missing put "Please put |owner in the template" in red on the bot page), and a bot can then automatically retrieve all owners so that we can auto-generate the bot-owner list at some time in the future.  mendel 22:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a partial sync. I implemented the first suggestion, but I do not really think the second one is needed for this template.  If we added that "Owner's must state on the page that the bot is owned by the user" to the Bot policy proposal, but that is all that would be need imho. -- Shadowphoenix  23:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd also need to tell all users what lists to put themselves onto. I think it makes sense to have it in the template, and it's no effort to introduce at this stage, but it's certainly not a necessity. More of a luxury. ;-) I'm thinking about editing the template to display "This user has read and understood GW:BOT", but we're not there yet. :-P mendel 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to me, too - putting the "owned by" tagline in the template means one less line the owner actually has to type. Put it in an #if: block so it can be hidden if they don't define the owner parameter.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 01:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

nessecity
no one who is a sysop needs a special button on a person's page to ban them. We have a nifty little link on our side bar. I don't anticipate us having so many bots thatr we need a uniform way of keeping their pages. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 02:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The button is much quicker imo. It auto sets autoblock off and auto sets the time that the bot will be blocked and why etc.  Much simpler, less typing less clicking  -- Shadowphoenix  02:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah laziness, the great (de)motivator of humankind. [[Image:Banjulhu icon.png|50x19px]] Banjthulu  is better than you 02:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not so much laziness as it is needed. A human can usually make about 5 edits in the course of 10 secs, where as a bot can preform about 15-20 edits in a course of 10 secs (possibly more); so it is best to have a very quick way to block a bot so less damage is done.  -- Shadowphoenix  02:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick question (this is in all seriousness), how many times has an Admin on GuildWiki needed to ban a bot? [[Image:Banjulhu icon.png|50x19px]]  Banjthulu  is better than you 02:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 27. This is in all seriousness. -- Dr R. Phalange 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly do not know, but the button is to prevent any harmful edits made by a bot. Bots are know to sometimes screw up *cough* ok jk, but really bots can malfunction and mess up a heck of a lot of stuff. I think that it has happen more than a few times on wikipedia... -- Shadowphoenix  02:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's another great preventative measure against bots -- do the friggin' work yourself, you lazy sods! :D -- Dr R. Phalange 02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok then, the next time that we need to tag 15,000 articles with a category, we will leave that to you =D lol -- Shadowphoenix  02:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wa'? De answer is not 42?  Seriously?  [[Image:Banjulhu icon.png|50x19px]]  Banjthulu  is better than you 02:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the number 51 rings a bell... -- Dr R. Phalange 02:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Blasphemy. We al' nu dat so'tiz 21!  [[Image:Banjulhu icon.png|50x19px]]  Banjthulu  is better than you 02:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I talked to god a while back and he said it's 51. -- Dr R. Phalange 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which one? Google?  The FSM?  The IPU?  You have to be specific when talking about non-real entities.  [[Image:Banjulhu icon.png|50x19px]]  Banjthulu  is better than you 02:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "wa-pa-haa!" -- Dr R. Phalange  02:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A human can make 5 edits in 10 seconds? Seriously? Wow. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 04:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, didnt you know? :|. I managed to do it once iirc :p. No, but seriously, unless you have multiple tabs open and click save at the same time, bots can do about 10~ in a minute, humans about 3~ max. Thats just a rough, un-needed note.. :P &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 09:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry I did over do it with the humans thing :P, (but they can do more than 3 in a min if they are fast and have fast comps). But a bot that is not AWB can preform a lot of tasks in 10 secs, AWB is a bit slower than other bot programs.  (Take Wikichu for instance over at GWW, I refresh every 60 secs or so; so if a I have bot edits to show in RC it is almost full with Wikichu's edits if it is running. [Oh and I allow RC to show 250 changes at once]) -- Shadowphoenix  13:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I plan on using a perl bot in future, copying all of ish's coding, then fiddling around with it and testing it on maypedia. :p. I have 1000 edits in my RC, and I managed to make, iirc, 1000~ edits in 1 hour ;p &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 13:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)