User talk:Bot-maru

oops!
Just noticed you are a bot. My bad! Kuki ni  21:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be! That's funny. --maru  (talk)  contribs 00:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages
Does it make sense to have the bot correct spelling on talk pages? Such as here --Ravedave 19:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't not make sense; I'm minding it anyway, so it doesn't replace anything it shouldn't (for instance, did you know that the string "wierd" actually pops up fairly often in Polish? I didn't.) --maru  (talk)  contribs 20:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded, at another talk page (Talk:Furry fandom). It's technically harmless, but isn't quite right either. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, correcting the spelling on talk pages is kinda frowned on (see "Don't misrepresent other people"). Unless it's your own stuff of course. No major problem with it in my mind, though some people don't like to be corrected and you might as well not annoy people if it's not important anyways.  -kotra 00:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just noted this edit, another spelling correction on talk pages. I think correcting spelling on talk pages is a very bad idea, since it wastes server resources to no purpose.  The articles need correct spelling; the talk pages don't. -- SCZenz 01:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm using an XML dump, so it takes almost no resources (the size of the diff is rather minor, since it is a single word). And I'm also correcting articles, if you'll notice. It's easier for me to simply correct talk pages as well (and better on people reading those talk pages, since incorrect spelling won't bother them) and articles, rather than to take the time and effort to discriminate; to be more precise, the talk page guidelines say don't go out of your way to minorly fix up talk pages, but what you guys are asking me to do is something different, to go out of my way to avoid fixing up talk pages. Besides, talk pages need love too! --maru  (talk)  contribs 01:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine it's very hard to do a wildcard check on the page title. And Kotara's point is a very good one also; it may be seen as kind of rude to the people who made the spelling errors.  Since there's no benefit to the spelling corrections, or an extremely marginal one, the onus is on you to have the bot behave itself even if it's more work. -- SCZenz 01:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if there is an option to do regexps on the article titles, I haven't noticed it yet. Perhaps I should look into a feature request? Meh. And I think the bot is behaving itself — I immediately correct any mistakes I make, I'm using an XML dump to minimize bandwidth usage, it has a registered bot account and a clear warn-file, it's throttled, &c. And I don't think it is rude at all. If anything, it is respectful — "I see your writings as valuable enough that I'll spend my freetime improving them." I also disagree with your assessment of the value, but I've already said as much. —maru  (talk)  contribs 01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think much of you ignoring Talk page guidelines because you disagree with it, but I'll let this slide for now. I anticipate you will receive more complaints about this; if you do, I urge you to pay attention to them. -- SCZenz 02:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your (Maru's) interpretation is in the minority. Every other wikipedia bot I've seen steers clear of talk pages. Most people seem to feel that correcting typos on the talk pages is of very little, if any use, and even can be seen as rude. On the talk pages, it's solely the editor's responsibility to correct their spelling if they want to.  I can see you're doing this in good faith, but if I were you I'd change your bot so it ignores talk pages.  Shouldn't be too hard, just tell it to ignore pages that start with "Talk:", or even any URL that has "Talk:" in it.
 * It may take a bit more programming, but I can guarantee it will be worth missing the complaints from people who think you're being pedantic or rude, even if your intent is the opposite. -kotra 02:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, of course we're asking you to go out of your way to treat talk pages differently &mdash; they are different. –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly agree that the bot shouldn't touch talk pages. Comments should be left in their initial integrity, no matter what. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 02:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, spell-checking other people's comments isn't technically vandalism, but it's close. dcandeto 03:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you guys even listening to yourselves? You're comparing spell-checking to vandalism? Good grief. --maru  (talk)  contribs 05:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the community's position, which is the guideline says what it says. Given the feedback you've gotten so far, I'd like to request you disable your bot until it can be rewritten to ignore talk pages.  Will you do that? -- SCZenz 05:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with the people above. Changing text, even making spelling corrections, to text which people have signed as their own, is inappropriate. I'd suggest that your bot stick to the article space. kmccoy (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is inappropriate. I first noticed []. I would expect to be told off if I started correcting the spelling in people's posts. I agree it would potentially be considered rude. Surely it's easy enough to exclude the Talk: space from robotic improvement? Notinasnaid 09:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just adding my support to those people saying that this bot should not be allowed on talk pages. violet/riga (t) 17:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I also object to this bot editing talk pages. It's not about whether the edits are an improvement on the original words, it's about misrepresentation; my signature at the end of a comment tells readers that those are my words. I would rather see my signature attached to errors of my own making than to things I didn't write. --Calair 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It goes against Wikipedia culture to edit comments made by others for no good reason, even if they are incorrect (in fact, sometimes I think the software should prevent this). Deco 18:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page corrections
as per the discussions above and your bot's edits here I have to insist that you keep it off talk pages at least until you can get further input on whether it is appropriate. I definitely think the bot's changes are probably harmless but in general it is bad to modify other people's comments at all. Pegasus1138 Talk 17:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that correcting spelling on talk pages is undesirable, but not necessarily broken. However, you must agree that it diverts resources from the primary task, of correcting spelling in articles. Bluap 01:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot
Hello, it seems that you are running a bot called User:Bot-maru, without any authorization to do so. Please seek approval from WP:BRFA before continuing. Thank you. -- light darkness (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Posting on bot page too in hopes it stops the bot.

Bot blocked
I have blocked this bot until the above issues are straightened out. It continues to edit talk pages despite many, many requests to the contrary&mdash;thus it's reasonable to view it as broken. Please don't unblock it until this is fixed, and issues of proper authorization are cleared up. -- SCZenz 17:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for blocking this bot. I reverted the change it made to my user talk page, because I strongly feel we should in no way alter the text of what someone else has written, except in some rare cases involving personal attacks or other extremely inappropriate edits. typos and speling errors fall well below this category. (The previous sentence should include one example of each, unless it gets edited by some bot or overzealous editor.) Wesley 16:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)