User talk:EmxBot

Nobody, including bots, should be making such minor and meaningless edits: [1]. It adds load to the servers and achieves nothing positive whatsoever. --Stemonitis 16:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing. Removing spaces from headings, which makes no difference to how the article is seen, is a waste of time. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has their own style of wikisyntax .. mine is headers without spaces next to the =='s (although I never change other's edits to meet this—such as this bot has). Agreed, the changes were not really necessary, and I'm unlikely going to change my syntax habits, as there is nothing wrong with it. +mwtoews 16:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the bot's entire output seems to be such trifling tweaks, I have blocked it. This activity was not approved: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EmxBot. --Stemonitis 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This activity has stopped and won't occur without previous announcement. Can bot be unblocked for adding interwiki links? --Emx 16:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. --Stemonitis 16:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It went back to making the trivial changes again, so I've reblocked. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue this sort of activity. Do not add spaces in headers or any other completely trivial actions (most of which are not even agreed upon and have no standard). --- RockMFR 17:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this bot also appears to have been operaing at a higher speed than authorized for. It appears to me that the last 500 edits before the first block were made at a rate of >1 sec (70/min). --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was too fast and as I previously said, won't happen ever again. Bot is doing his job now. --Emx 19:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, it went back to the trivial changes after you said that it wouldn't happen again. Secondly, it's a bit worrying that you thought that it was working, as I'd blocked it nearly three hours earlier... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, I agree with your second point, but it does look to me that only 6 edits were made by the bot between when the block lifted and when you did the reblock; and I think that all those edits were iw's. I still think that this bot was out of control, but I also do want the record of what happened to be correct. As an admin can you see some other hidden edits that I don't, or are you perhaps mistaken on this particular point. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right, it was my mistake. I don't know how I came to make it. I've unblocked again. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the 2nd point, perhaps this is a language issue (Emx is from Bosnia, I think?) and they mean that the 6 edits were correct before it was reblocked? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, I suppose. I'm surprised, then, that he didn't ask for it to be unblocked. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Yes, that is the curious part. I probably shouldn't over-speculate, but perhaps he was making sure to not "poke the admins"? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add an additional vote: Please do NOT include these so-called "cosmetic changes" in your bot's scripts. Let the people who maintain pages keep their own style; this causes meaningless, stupid reverts and doesn't add anything. SnowFire 01:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It just made one of these changes to RuneScape locations, adding space to each header. The problem is, I occasionally use some formatting JavaScript that removes the same kind of space on the article. (Of course, I'll always do this formatting as part of a more major edit, because otherwise it's pointless.) The "cosmetic" purpose should be removed from the bot. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 02:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the wasteful "cosmetic" edits--Dbolton 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More pointless edits at 03:10, 2 April UTC to Jensen Ackles, block it and have someone look over it before it is unblocked. Firelement85 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I lied about the time, looking at the wrong time stamp. Opps. Firelement85 03:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this bot do such a minor change changing ==title== to == title == It is not needed, it does not change the readabily of the artcial or the coding? waste of time and sever power. Why was such a bot approved? --Lwarf 10:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read what's said above, you'll see that it wasn't. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion is that such cosmetic edits are not needed and will be performed, if needed, by humans. Changing ==something== to == something == doesn't change article's look, only it's code. Bot will from now on resume it's interwiki adding. --Emx 11:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested other stuff at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EmxBot and admins should check that. --Emx 15:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leipzig

Your bot always adds jv:Lipsk to the Interwiki list. Please stop him from doing that, the article has nothing to do with the city of Leipzig. — N-true 01:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot was running autonomously and it added interwiki links that other wikipedias contained. --Emx 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not a complaint but an observation

Cross posted on the talk pages of AlleborgoBot and EmxBot

Both these robots seem as best as I can tell are making corrections to the style of dates in a character set I don’t recognise and to the order of listing in the “in other languages” box.

If both bots are pursuing exactly the same aim then all well and good but if either is doing a subset of the other the second one will be making an edit where it could have been done only once had both bots been pursuing exactly the same goal.

To date I have not seen any conflicts between these bots, but since they are editing pages on my watchlist I don’t want the prospect of a bot driven edit war.

Thanks -- Drappel 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few adjustments

Your bot places the old belarusian WP (be-x-old:) first in the wiki order. I want to know where you have gotten that information. Unless there is a specific agreement on the en: wp, it should go after the new belarusian (be:). Also, your bot places the Uzbek (uz:) after the (uk:) and changes its namespace prefix Kategoriya to Category. The local name for Uzbek is O'zbek. Therefore, it should be placed just before (pa:), according to Interwiki sorting order, which is the main reference for multilingual coordination. Even though the prefix Category will work, the real local namespace should be preferred. Your bot should be adjusted to reflect these conventions.

Good continuation. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 18:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try with fixing this. --Emx 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I need help renaming about 200 articles. Doing this by hand would take me all day.

Can your bot rename articles, or be adapted to do so?

If so, please contact me.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 22:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]