User talk:Aaron Schulz/Archive/2008/July
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Aaron Schulz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In 2007 you have blocked User 72.75.18.173 for socking [1]. Can you please look case Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.75.24.245. Thanks--Rjecina (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:CHU
I have a request: Can you make your bot archive the WP:CHU page more frequently? Those done (after 1 day), not done (3 days)? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect the Bot is supposed to archive requests at least this frequently, I think the problem is that the bot still isn't removing {{not done}} requests from WP:CHU, just adding them to the archives. I mentioned this issue earlier this year but should probably have nudged since then... WjBscribe 22:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:RFPP Archiving
There's a discussion going on right now about possibly keeping a 1-2 day (or more) temporary archive of requests at RFPP. Since you run the bot, I guess it would be kind of important to get your input on this matter. -Royalguard11(T) 02:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
RFPP request
I've been doing a ton of RFPP work lately, and I notice the moving around of entries by VoABot on that page is a very slow process. Your work is very helpful, but I would like if the process were sped up a bit. I'm not asking for more than 1 edit an hour- That part is fine. But currently, there are items in the "current requests" section that are over 40 hours old [2]. I see no reason to have any pages in any of the 3 "current requests" sections for more than 1-2 hours after being responded to, and I see no reason to have requests in the "fulfilled/denied" requests section any more than 5 or 6 hours. Sometimes requests that haven't been responded to get lost in the shuffle in between a bunch that have, and are ignored for hours. If moving down to the fulfilled section was faster, this problem would likely disappear. Any thoughts or concerns about changing this? VegaDark (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Per WJBscribe's comments here I would like to know if you want to continue running the bot or if you want my bot to take over --Chris 05:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Out of curioity, does your bot continue to auto-revert new users as it says in the rfc, or has that been stopped a while ago? If it's the latter i'll archive the rfc. Wizardman 21:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is disabled. Aaron Schulz 16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
FlaggedRevs
Is FlaggedRevs currently being used on Wikipedia? If not, is it under consideration? As far as I've heard, any article edits are immediately visible to anonymous visitors. (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater (Talk) 01:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is used only on German Wikipedia. There are a host of bug request to enable it elsewhere. And yes, it can be made to show the draft (current) version by default. Aaron Schulz 13:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for explaining. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for cleaning up my user page during vandalism. I'm not sure if the bot does it automatically or if someone drives it - but whichever, it's appreciated! Grblundell (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)