User talk:AllyUnion/Archive17

Kurando-san and WikiProjects

This bot is adding the inactive template to projects which already have it, simply because they are still categorised in Category:WikiProjects, due to a prior consensus that they should be dual categorised so as to make them more readily viewable. Whether that consensus is correct or not is another matter, but there it is. Hiding talk 16:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that keeping them in Category:WikiProjects means that the bot has to traverse additional pages it doesn't need to? Furthermore, it's just unnecessary clutter. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of that consensus, I wasn't even party to the consensus, I'm just pointing it out. People felt it wasn't unnecessary clutter, but that the projects were more readily viewable and likely to be restarted if they were dual categorised, and that it would prevent creating duplicate projects. I'm not sure people were aware of the bot at that time, perhaps the bot hadn't been set up for that task back then. Maybe if the bot was set up to check if they were already labelled with template:inactive, that would solve the problem? Hiding talk 09:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that there are several ways to write {{inactive}} that I would have to check for correct? This doesn't count any template that has been made a redirect to {{inactive}}. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I've started going through the list of admins to see if the active/inactive can be updated and wound up noticing instead who is and who is not using edit summaries (cause it sort of sticks out). Just to let you know, you're use of summaries is practically not there (though you are commenting on User pages a lot where it feels less necessary). Anyhow, just a thought on contributions. Marskell 00:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and you're telling me because you feel that I'm inactive or active or what? --AllyUnion (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're obviously very active! As I said, I started out thinking I'd update the semi-active and inactive lists and got diverted toward edit summaries. My thinking is that edit summaries are becoming more of an important criterion on RfA and if we are going to evaluate potential admins on this basis it's only fair to expect it of established admins. Of course, I'm only at A on the main list and probably won't have the energy to make it through 600... Marskell 13:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbot reverted my edit

What is wrong with the link I added? Sandbot has removed it. CiaPan 07:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In attempt to keep the template stable, the sandbot uses several key pages to achieve this effect. --AllyUnion (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another bot

Hi, I'm not around much these days, so can't follow up on that bot. However I'd like another simple bot which will substitute my template signatures. ie. it will hunt down [[User:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp</font>]] [[User talk:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=</font>]] and convert it to {{subst:user:Nichalp/sg}} . I've seen a bot already do this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try using replace.py in pywikipedia. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert bot

Hi, I was wondering how possible is a "revert bot" which I can use to revert entier contribution of a user or anon. Usefull against vandal bots which take too much time to revert. --Cool Cat ^Talk 21:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... not very likely. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Sula sula nesting in Heliotropium foertherianum.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Thank you for finding one of the cutest featured pictures I've ever seen! Raven4x4x 12:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NotificationBot: Target finish date

AllyUnion, I'm not trying to rush you or anything, but would you mind providing an approximate timetable of when the NotificationBot is going to be back up? (i.e. one day, one week, one month...) Thanks a lot. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 02:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you should rely on NotificationBot. I do this on my free time, but currently it is on my lower end of priorities. --AllyUnion (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no more!

Hi AllyUnion. Please can you stop adding more articles to the list on the AfD. Why not just say "all articles about individual cricket matches"? As it is, the page is going to become unnecessarily massive. If you want a comprehensive list, could you not place it there, where it is causing ridiculous numbers of changes to my watchlist. Much obliged! [[Sam Korn]] 15:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The list is now nearly 50kb - why is it necessary to do this? [[Sam Korn]] 16:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have your attention now. Please don't move the list back. It is patantly disruptive. [[Sam Korn]] 17:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the same topic, can I ask why in the world you felt the need to renominate these articles, when this has been discussed before? Even if the topic is worth discussing again, at least do it properly, not stating that all the articles are merely short stub paragraphs, and then including in the list not only short paragraphs on minor games, but long descriptions of some of the most memorable Test Matches of recent times. JPD (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I randomed one stubbish cricket article, and I thought, wow, why is this here? It had no AFD record, and I don't particular take part in AFD anymore, so how should I've known there was a prior discussion? Then I found the whole large category of them. And I saw that many of them were just like the first one I randomed. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your rather high-speed, high-rate edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket matches articles, please indicate whether this is human editing or a bot.

If the former, please remember WP:POINT and consider taking a break for now. If the latter - well, you of all people should know the rules - so stop it.

Thanks. Rob Church ^Talk 18:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your fingers must be really, really tired. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking me, Robchurch. It forced the blocking of all my other bots. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing the bot and merging the content. There's one little problem, though - the reason why the articles were transcluded in the first place was because the content appeared on four pages, not one. As a result, the three other pages have now been turned into, effectively, a MASSIVE page with the content on 8-30 April repeated about fifty-odd times. So don't click Frizzell_County_Championship_Division_One_in_2005, since it'll just hang there forever. So I've really got two options: Reconstruct the pages from the list of subarticles under each tournament's page - or ask you kindly to revert the changes, so that I can merge in the content using subst, and then run the bot again (without the merge of 8-30 April). Your call. Sam Vimes 14:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlas Award

The Atlas Award For Raking the Sandbox Clean may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond the call of duty in fishing disgusting and unwanted items from the Wikipedia sandbox. "The sandbox is not a litterbox"

Althugh its an automated bot doing the task, it most certanly isnt easy to code it. You should have been given this ages ago, but because you are doing such a fine job no one is watching the sandbox and hence perhaps not appriciating your fine work --Cool Cat ^Talk 23:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Atlas award

Someone already gave me one, but thanks for another one. Actually, the python program is quite shorter than expected. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shorter code implies a more pro programmer... ;) --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket merge bot broken

Hello, AllyUnion. Your cricket merge bot failed to merge the individual articles into the various tournaments and various team pages, so the pages for each tournament and team are now broken. (See for example Cheltenham & Gloucester Trophy in 2005). Please mend them. Thank you. Stephen Turner 15:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

%#!!!#^%#^$^@^#@%@$%%#!% ... *sigh*. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fixed now? --AllyUnion (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Thanks for the help, hope I won't bother you too much in the future! Sam Vimes 07:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User-Agent

Please set the User-Agent header for your bot to something descriptive. -- Tim Starling 02:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sandbot (weatherbot)

Would it be possible for you to add to sandbot (or some other regularly-run bot) the unconditional deletion of the weather in London? Wikipedia:How to edit a page uses this title as an example of a red link but of course it keeps getting created. -- RHaworth 17:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See response at: Wikipedia talk:Bots. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Copy the following into User:AllyUnion/monobook.js:

/////////////////////////////////
// Signature fix.
function sigFix () {
document.getElementById("toolbar").innerHTML=document.getElementById("toolbar").innerHTML.replace('--~~' + '~~','--[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion]] [[User_talk:AllyUnion|(talk))]] &bull; {{subst' + ':CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst' + ':CURRENTMONTH}}-{{subst' + ':CURRENTDAY}} {{subst' + ':CURRENTTIME}}');
}

function reformatMyPage() {
  sigFix();
}
if (window.addEventListener) window.addEventListener("load",reformatMyPage,false);
else if (window.attachEvent) window.attachEvent("onload",reformatMyPage);
/////////////////////////////////

Then, after saving the page, press CTRL and F5 at the same time to reload the file. Now whenever you sign something, click the signature button at the top of the edit box, and it will automatically be pasted into the edit box. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-13 14:01

Are you to tell me that I'm suppose to parse a date because you want to be special? Yeesh. Are you the only one? (I say this because I'm a lazy programmer, and rather take to the idea of leaving code alone when it properly works.) --AllyUnion (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the person I got it from got it from someone else. I know of at least 2 or 3 others that use this, probably more. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-13 14:04

Is that the only format I have to look for? Are there people signing a format other than your YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM format? I don't like to play guess the format... --AllyUnion (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-13 14:10

Thanks

Because of my wikibreak I didn't notice this until reading back on my talk page history. Anyway I saw that Nekodaemon now does excellent work for {{categoryredirect}}, so thank you for implementing that! Yours, R adiant _>|< 15:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

?

What the hell is wrong with you? why did you block me again? Unless you are a total idiot (which I don't think you are) you should know that blocking my bot would block me as well, I have explained what is going on, and am in discussion with Noisy. Blocking isnt a "punishment" for when you unilaterally think someone has done something wrong, you are treating me like a vandal. You had absolutely no reason to block me again, I had not reactivated my bot, not that I wasnt within my rights to. I am really shocked at your behaviour. I really don't dont how you expect to explain this. Martin 16:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Did you just block me again? OMG Martin 16:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Hhhmm, on closer inspection you only blocked my bot once (well twice, but a few minutes apart), Nandesuka blocked it later, but the autoblock message when I tried to edit a page definately said it was you that blocked me, must be page caching or something. Oh well, sorry for the above, I take it all back, if you have ever been blocked you know how it feels! sorry and thanks Martin 16:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My bot is still blocked, Nandesuka doesn't like the idea of me unblocking it myself and doesnt want to get involed, please can you unblock it when you get this, I won't do any bot work that Noisy disagrees with until we have come to some agreement, I do however want to do some re-categorisation. Thanks. Martin 17:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok someone else has unblocked it now. For clarification; I was given the impression that you blocked me again about 2 hours after you did to start, I assume my browser must have cached the old page saying "you were blocked by AllyUnion...." or something, and it seemed a little unfair, anyway, sorry for wasting space on your user page. Martin 18:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluebot block (that's a mouthfull)

I removed the block on bluebot. Martin agreed to stop it from doing 1911 changes and Noisy agreed that was his only concern. I took it to be that was your only worry about the situation. I would have contacted you first, but there was some escalation regarding self unblocking between Martin and User:Nandesuka. I felt that it was best for everyone involved if I just removed the block to calm the situation. Didn't want you to think I was being impolite :) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 18:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Entente

The border disputes between Poland and Lithunia were one of a very small number of issues that were explicitly excluded from the Entente Treaty. (i.e. Lithuania retained the authority to have its own policy on this issue rather than having a shared policy with the other countries). Whilst these were a failure of the Entente in a technical sense (if the Baltics had a true single defence policy then they would have a single voice on this issue too) it is not the reason why they failed to retain their independence from Germany and the Soviets (which was the ultimate aim of the Entente).

The fact should be included in a longer version of the article, but in a stub it was a misleading detail. Hope that helps. Pcb21| Pete 08:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket matches articles

Hi AllyUnion,

I have closed the above-mentioned VFD, but would like your bot to do the removing of the VFD notices and add the oldafdfull notice...It'll take ages for me to do this by hand!

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 09:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just remove the AFD notice... --AllyUnion (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket articles

2005 English cricket season

I have listed a series of redirects that start with "2005 English cricket season/" here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Redirects_that_need_fixing. Do you want a bot to go and remove the pages linking to them, then mark them for speedy deletion? --AllyUnion (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, much appreciated. If you could turn Yorkshire v Worcestershire 7-10 September 2005 and similar pages to redirects as well, that'd be lovely - the list is here. Sam Vimes 18:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to... where? --AllyUnion (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either the home team's page, or the period pages (1-14 June and so on). Whichever is easiest to program Sam Vimes 08:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding date standardization

The WikiProject seems to be inconsistent in the naming of its dates... well, but then again, so is the rest of Wikipedia... But as a project, some kind of consistancy naming should be picked. Ian has pointed out that dates listed like South African cricket season (1888) is non-preferred... meaning that 2005 English cricket season (1-14 June) would likely be non-preferred as well. Seeing as you are picking how to name your categories in regards to a date range, shouldn't some naming consistency be address? --AllyUnion (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly this is "dates" instead of "years", but that's splitting hairs. I'm definitely opposed to making it 1-14 June 2005 English cricket season - that's patently nonsensical, since a season lasts much longer than 14 days. I think the current name signifies that the the 1-14 June pages are extensions of the 2005 English cricket season page in itself, which is just a short season wrap-up for people who need that. I wouldn't object terribly to 2005 English cricket season from 1 to 14 June 2005, though... Sam Vimes 18:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for AfD bot work

Quick suggestion - when your bot closes the daily Articles_for_Deletion/Log page, could you also have it update the date at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion? I'm referring to the part that says "this edit link." Thanks. | Keithlaw (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um... that's already done automatically by the server. That is set by the server clock, which is based in the UTC timezone. --AllyUnion (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a lag between those the two events. Twice in the last three days, I've tagged an article for deletion and found that the link on the AfD page itself sent me to the Log that just closed. Anyway, thanks for the reply. | Keithlaw (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new day link is added 7-8 minutes before midnight of UTC. The log itself is closed around 1 minute after midnight of UTC. Are you telling me that for whatever reason, when you click that link past 00:00 UTC, that it still a day behind? --AllyUnion (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Next time it happens, I'll write down the times. I believe that yes, I was past 00:00 UTC and still was directed to the old page - as I recall, each time it happened, the new day's log already had 10+ entries on it. It seems odd that I'd hit that 8-9 minute window twice in three days, but I guess it's possible. Thanks. | Keithlaw 21:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding article namespace

Please refrain from transcluding the article namespace. The article namespace is not be to used for this purpose, and it creates the illusion that the Wikipedia has more articles than it does. Furthermore, the articles you create and leave behind in the article namespace creates a virtual paper trail that is difficult to follow. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, AllyUnion but I do not know what "transcluding" means. What is exactly wrong with the articles that I create. Can you please give an example? Thank you Da Gizza ^{Chat (c)} 10:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of the process of transclusion. Basically, you created the article Bangladesh v India 26 December 2004 and transclused the article on to List of major upsets in One Day cricket by placing the text as {{:Bangladesh v India 26 December 2004}}. This method is frown upon. --AllyUnion (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a result, someone would be more inclined to nominate Bangladesh v India 26 December 2004 for deletion because they would believe it's an article that serves no purpose. --AllyUnion (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Argh... how many more of these are there?!?!?

I just ran into... Bangladesh v India 26 December 2004. This was found on List of major upsets in One Day cricket. Can you tell me how many more are there? --AllyUnion (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, that's the only one. Sam Vimes 11:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Thank you so very much :) Have a bunch of grapes for your leg-work. Sam Vimes 21:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date polls ...

Greetings! I hope you're well. Thanks for adminstering the date polls and for your updates. However, I think the current poll is far less functional than its predecessor: the prior poll provided options for users to choose from, hopefully allowing a clear consensus to form or be identified. Instead, the current poll has too many options for voters to choose from, possibly causing confusion and an ambiguous result.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to participate, but the current poll seems very unwieldy and I wanted to inform you of my concerns. Thoughts? In any event, thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 03:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I found the prior poll much clearer. Perhaps both can be pruned somehow? E Pluribus Anthony 03:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, I was rather fine with the prior poll. And it's your baby: nurse it back to health! I cannot guarantee a speedy turnaround currently, but will help if I can. E Pluribus Anthony 04:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK bot

Hi, is there any chance you will have the DYK bot up and running in the forseebale future? We're getting quite a backlog of stuff that needs archiving. Thanks.--nixie 12:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... a lot of stuff has been moved around to the point I don't know what the archive order is anymore. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't moved any of the bots stuff (as far as I know), but there are several editors that work on the page. This is what was there in September (check it edit mode)

Archive

Suggestions that have appeared on Template:Did you know are automatically archived at Wikipedia:Recent additions by one of AllyUnion's bots.

All older items have been archived at Wikipedia:Recent additions. --nixie 23:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blueballs...err..Bluebot at it again

Hello, I'm having an editing conflict with Bluebot and its creator 1. I noticed from Wikipedia talk:Bots, that you have also had issues with them recently. Blueboy, seems to think there is a concensus on style where none has really been reached. I also find his attitude unhelpful and his interpretations of the MoS rigid (as in Meta:Don't be a dick rigid). Please look into the matter, as you seem to be both level-headed and Wiki-Mighty in all things bot. If Iam truly in the wrong here, I will stand down. Thanks for your time and attention, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AU, note the above user is not referring to anything to do with the previous dispute, but because I subst:'ed a template on a page, which has been agreed on here and has been mentioned on the bots page, he now seems to accept that the subst: is ok. I think he initially didn't understand what subst:'ing was, as he originally termned it vandalism. Martin 16:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the history diff of one article he complained about, Order of Battle of the Waterloo Campaign and what template it is subst:, (Prettytable? Seems awlfully stupid), I'm inclined to agree that his complaint was rather invalid and that your bot was operating how it should be. By the way, I would mention in passing that your bot is operating according to the guideline at Wikipedia:Template substitution on your bot page. Being highly descriptive on your bot page prevents confusion when someone goes to find how what your bot does, which I still think your bot page is rather vague. --AllyUnion (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do that before I do anymore bot work, I did link to the subst: page in the edit summary, but it can't hurt to make it more obvious. Martin 17:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to create French administrative division info

Hi, I've created a page for the bot. Dlyons493 Talk 00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kakashi Bot

Am I correct in assuming that one can request jobs to be done by your bot here? I'm currently trying to orphan Image:Flag of Czech Republic.svg and replace it with Image:Flag of the Czech Republic, but the amount of pages it is used in (especially English, French, Spanish wikipedias) is enormous... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the difference between the two. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For countries/regions with the terms "Republic" or "Islands" in their short name, correct grammar is "Flag of the Czech Republic", not "Flag of Czech Republic". Image names are expected to follow the same naming rules as article, AFAIK, so this grammar mistake should be corrected, and it'll be much easier with a bot. Furthermore, I've managed to upload basically all the national flags in svg format, and those should replace the earlier png versions, so the bot could be put to further use... Sorry if I'm getting on your nerves, but your bot seemed to be available for tasks.

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 00:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. At least for English pages. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks a lot! Could you do the same for Image:Flag of Peoples Republic of China.svg, replacing it with Image:Flag of China.svg? Thanks! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind the above, then... Please replace:

Thanks!

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Any remaining links should be checked over manually. --AllyUnion (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!

ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standstill

Hi, AllyUnion. Discussion on this award at WP:BAP has been at a standstill for almost two months. Since you were previously involved in the decision-making, please consider reviving the discussion. If no attempts are made within a week, it will be archived. Thanks, Sango 123 (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat interest?

Hi. I think we need about 30 more bureaucrats, and I think you'd make a good one. It is my understanding that RfB is a self-nom process, so I urge you to consider throwing your proverbial hat into the proverbial ring. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will give it some thought. --AllyUnion (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FPC

I don't know if you have been paying attention but there has been some discussion on FPC here about deleting the discussion period in favor of the new peer review page (and other misc. changes). I would like your input because I don't know if you would have to modify your bot (we could just comment out the section and it would never bother with it) or perhaps you have somthing to add to the discussion. I 'm waiting for a few more FPC regulars to comments before making the changes . Broken S 22:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]