User talk:Hagerman/Archive/3

Thank you
Thank you very much for your welcome. I will try to foloow your advice. regards.--zumanon 11:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, don't hesitate to ask me any questions you might have. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 18:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's fast!
Damn, your bot is fast! Is there any chance of your bot being expanded to watch certain articles for repetitive vandalism and spam? I imagine it could even be made specific enough to look just for certain IP ranges (like the Stoner rock spammer) and/or certain types of edits (like the Jim Clark vandal). —Wknight94 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We already have bots that watch for vandalism and spam. See User:AntiVandalBot, for example. If you have suggestions for improving such bots, I suggest you direct them to their talk pages, or Bot requests – Gurch 21:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd support anything that gave every other bot the crack that HagermanBot is on. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * HagermanBot is fast because it's running continuously and only has to check talk pages. Compare this with AntiVandalBot (which has to check all edits) and most maintenance bots (which only run once a day or less frequently) – Gurch 12:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So why wouldn't it make sense to add the ability to watch individual pages as well? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if we could have a dedicated bot that covers just the day's FA, or dedicated to watching other particular namespaces (I'm thinking of the recent template vandals), that could be fantastic. I would think that, if we've got bots dedicated to certain namespaces, the general bots could (perhaps) get those namespaces turned off (ie: AntiVandalBot could ignore the template space if another bot has that specifically covered). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with narrowing it down to certain individual problem articles we have. Like the floating IPs that have been posting floating band spam URLs in Stoner rock for months (some band called 18speedtranny, whatever the hell that is).  Or the floating IPs and socks that have attacked the Jim Clark article for months.  They end up forcing certain articles to be on almost permanent semi-protect or even full protect.  Before long, I'm going to write a bot myself to do such things...  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't VoABot II already handle specific pages for vandalism? Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 19:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It advertises that, yes, but I didn't have good luck with it. In the two months or so I've been watching Stoner rock, VoABot II only reverted like 1 of the spam edits on that page.  Now it appears the page fell off VoABot II's watch list entirely for no apparent reason.  Those aren't the results I was hoping for.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * HagermanBot gets its crack from DrugBot; we need to get the other bots addicted. But in addition to the advantages Gurch mentioned, it also:
 * Uses IRC to determine recent edits, so it gets notification of an edit nearly instantaneously
 * Runs on multiple threads, so it can process edits and pull diffs from multiple pages simultaneously
 * Is running in my apartment which is about 12 miles from the PowerMedium data center where the Wikipedia servers are located, so it gives HagermanBot at least a 5ms advantage!
 * Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 19:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be on Smack... Rich Farmbrough, 22:15 30 December 2006 (GMT).

Possible improvement
See, which was added after. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out that edit, I'll filter those out. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 18:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for HagermanBot

 * Thanks! I put it on his userpage :-) Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 18:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your bot
HagermanBot seems to be a bit too shrewd. Just a few seconds after I left a comment without signing, your bot added the autosign for me, and when I tried to add back the signature an edit conflict occurred. I suggest that your bot do not append a signature to others' comments unless the comment is left unsigned for, say, 5 minutes, to allow time for users to fix the problem by themselves. --Deryck C. 08:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed in the past and the general consensus is that adding a delay will result in more edit conflicts because someone else is more likely to be editing the page after 5 minutes to submit their reply.  Hagerman ( talk ) 13:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect bot-op
Hi, I added a missed closing template to a closed AFD debate. Your bot marked it as an unsigned comment, and I doubt that was really necessary. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, I'll determine a way to get the bot to ignore those edits. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 18:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto on Articles for deletion/Jaron mccrea — Swpb talk contribs 03:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

HagermanBot doesn't like Template:discussion at
Hello Hagerman! Recently I noticed the HagermanBot adding a signature to a comment that I had left unsigned on a User Talk page. This could greatly help with new users, however, in this case I actually wanted to leave the thing unsigned! The Template:discussion at was invented by User:Quarl and you can see many interesting examples on User_talk:Quarl. You may notice that signing each use of the template would spoil the formatting and ruin the convenience of the thing. If the relentless HagermanBot is going to be run all the time, could you update it so that it doesn't insist that occurrences of discussion_at be signed? Thanks. EdJohnston 21:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I use subst with this template. I have read that HagermanBot would not complain if I used it without subst. EdJohnston 07:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The template is a good idea. You are correct about the bot not signing if it isn't subst'ed. You can also put !NOSIGN! somewhere in your edit summary and it will ignore the edit if you are subst'ing. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 19:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

bot to do cycle detection in wikipedia categories?
Hey. Thanks for creating the new user bot. I'm a long-time lurker, fairly new to editing. (I traced the welcome bot to WelcomeBotResearch which leads to you.)

Any chance you'd be interested in tackling this problem (or posting it somewhere where someone else could handle it)? I don't know how to kind of tap into the whole community. It seems like something that would be extremely straightforward to write a bot to deal with.

(from the Categorization page:)

Cycles should usually be avoided

Although the MediaWiki software does not prevent cycles (loops), these usually should be avoided. Cycles can be confusing to some readers, they can challenge some automated searching processes and they can grow quite large. For example, in January 2006 a 22-member category cycle was discovered and eliminated.

However, acceptable loops also exist. Self-referencing systems such as the meta- fields naturally create cycles that provide many examples. This type of cycle involves making a category one of its own subcategories. A real-world example of a self-referencing system is “education about education,” such as:

Classification: Education: Social sciences: Academic disciplines: Academia: Education: ...

Another type of cycle involves making two categories subcategories of each other. Loops such as these can be avoided by linking the categories manually to each other by adding "See also:Category:Foo" to each category page. For an example of this see Category:World Trade Center and Category:September 11, 2001 attacks.

Thanks Mattj2 09:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

haha nevermind, someone else wrote a bot that kind of seems related although it obviously doesn't do that. sigh. sorry. Mattj2 09:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

HagermanBot removing comments
Check this edit. I don't believe this should be happening. &mdash; Kieff 02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By design, it's not possible for the bot to cause your comment to be removed like that. It will automatically toss out the edit if a conflict arises when it's trying to save. Because both were processed within a few seconds of each other, I believe the issue was because they were both saved to Wikipedia on different database slaves and when they were synchronized with the master, your edit was saved first, followed by the HagermanBot edit. The end result looks like HagermanBot removed your comment, however, the problem was really with the underlying architecture of Wikipedia itself. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 18:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, it wasn't my comment. I just spotted it when I was checking the bot's contribs. :) &mdash; Kieff 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot status on Wikiversity
I've granted bot status for your bot on Wikiversity. sebmol 09:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcoming
RE your question on the welcoming committee's talk page here, I would like to know more about your experiences with this issue as it would assist me in my current research on new user trends. Please see Category:WelcomeBotResearch where you can read up on some brief details. Thanks. frummer 01:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What are the goals in your research? How would the welcoming bot function? Would it build a list of users who need to be welcomed? If you are interested in data, I'd be glad to build a bot that monitors IRC to report new user trends. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 03:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The essential goal of all bots here is to fill in for what us humans deem to be too arduous, so a simple answer to your question is to welcome new users. It has been proven that we have been falling short of our job in welcoming new users and showing them the ropes so as to make wikipedia truly open to edit. Growth diversifies the gene pool so to speak, preventing "in-breading" or NPOV. I myself was a wikignome for three years before discovering the use in the talk page and being welcomed. Building a list of users who need to be welcomed wasn't thought of but is also interesting. I'd very much appreciate if you could go ahead and build a bot that would enlighten us with regards to some of the problematic aspects of new users. Please sign into the project here and consider the seven points there. They are what can tell us everything. frummer 05:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've signed into the project and posted my proposed solution. Let me know what you think! Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 06:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * bravo! thanks man. frummer 06:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Any news on the web interface? frummer 18:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

slight delay on the signing bot?
Is it possible/rational to ask for a 15-60 second delay on the signing bot? I don't want to necessarily take the nuclear option of opting out entirely, but I got into an edit conflict with the bot the other day when I forgot to sign, saw I forgot to sign, went back to the page and edited, and then tried to save and was locked in a Battle Royale with a bot! Okay, maybe it wasn't quite that important... but it can't hurt to ask! -- nae'blis 19:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I was about to ask for the same thing. Jeez, give me a freakin second to correct my error. Your bot makes me look like a vandal, and that I signed only because I was "caught". Taco325i 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed many times in the past, I think Gurch answered it best...
 * Remember that a lot of users like to reply to messages left on their talk page in the same place, rather than going to the other user's page, to stop discussions being fragmented. Suppose the bot is set to wait 30 seconds before signing a comment. Now suppose User A leaves a message on User B's talk page, but forgets to sign. Within seconds of User A saving the edit, User B has seen a big orange bar and clicked on it. After a few more seconds, he's scrolled to the bottom of his talk page and hit the section edit link to reply. Unless pages are loading particularly slowly he will likely do this within 30 seconds. While User B is typing the message, the 30 seconds expires and HagermanBot signs User A's comment. User B finishes his reply a couple of minutes later and hits Save. Up pops the edit conflict screen; User B is confused and after a little investigation finds HagermanBot caused the edit conflict. User B comes to this page and moans about the bot. It's a case of which sort of moaning Hagerman wants to hear :)
 * Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 02:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Who gave you the right to do this ?
It is not mandatory that we sign, AFAIK. Instead of concocting this silly hack, why not get the official policy changed? I suppose you effectively did that by getting permission to run your bot on WP. How did you manage that anyway? (I won't bother with typing the fourtildas).


 * It isn't a policy, however, it is a guideline. You can view its approval at Bots/Requests for approval/HagermanBot. Feel free to opt out if you don't want to use it. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 02:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WB Research
Hi, please can you keep us the loop. Cheers. frummer 11:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I've been extremely busy at work and I haven't had much free time to work on the web interface. I'll be free this weekend, so it will be finished then. Thanks!  Hagerman ( talk ) 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i hope we can talk further when you have the free time. You prob don't realise yet how important this research will be in the future so thanks again for providing your skills. frummer 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

HagermanBot
Just so you know, I think your bot is an incredibly good idea. I love it. I'll give it a barnstar in a sec. But at the moment it's crashed - the VNC viewer link shows me about 10 instances of the bot in your taskbar, with Microsoft Error Reporting notices wanting to be dismissed. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it has. Now if only we could control Hagerman's computer with that VNC viewer :) – Gurch 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. FABULOUS bot!!!--Kukini 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to put in a "I agree" thing. It's great to see something so...passively useful, or something :) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh! My cable company has been having some serious problems with their internet service in my area and the bot has been having trouble staying up when the connection comes and goes. Things should be good for now, I'll keep a closer eye on it. Thanks!  Hagerman ( talk ) 02:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The good news though was even though the application crashed several times, the bot spawned a new instance to make sure that it continues to run. :-)  Hagerman ( talk ) 02:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A little smarter?
Any chance it could be a little smarter? Or do you want to stick with all that it does? I ask concerning Talk:Universal Image Format - some boneheads keep dropping spam links, and the bot signs them for them. If the bot noticed they were HTML spam links, it may help more by reverting it instead. I think the "other" bots that patrol for such things see this bot as the final edit, and leave it alone(?) &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 05:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's kinda funny looking at the history: didn't sign: "Some News" / didn't sign: "Paris Hilton" / didn't sign: "New Live Cam girls!" / didn't sign: "My girl-friend at cam" / didn't sign: "New Year Live Cam girls!" / didn't sign: "Sex in city" / didn't sign: "Asian Lesbian cam" &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 05:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea, I think I'll pursue that as the bot's third task :-) Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 02:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you add tilde to user talk pages of those that forget to sign talk page posts?
I think that your bot should add tilde to user talk pages of those that forget to sign talk page posts. I see you are tagging the posts as unsigned, but can you remind the user in question to sign while you are at it? Will (Talk - contribs) 08:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do (or propose to do, since this doesn't seem like something you should implement unilaterally), I'd recommend doing only for registered users, and maybe searching the user page first to make sure there isn't already a notification (or, say, a notification within the last week). I think that messages on anonymous IP talk pages often are never seen, or are seen by someone other than the original poster (as in, all of the country of Qatar uses one ISP that uses one IP address, as was discovered recently).  John Broughton  |  Talk 16:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot already does this. Currently, it leaves such messages for all users, both registered and unregistered – Gurch 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check that. I have found users that it missed. AntiVandalBot had a problem warning users too. You might ask Tawker what went wrong. Then check to see if your bot has the same problem. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It works, there is no real way for it to fail. The reason you probably don't see the warning on a user's talk page is because it takes three unsigned comments in a 24 hour period before the bot will leave a comment on the user's talk page. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 05:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That might be it. I don't keep track. I will now ignore users that your bot spots. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcomebot
So, what's the update from the SQL? Just H 04:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been working on the interface on and off today. I'll post an announcement as soon as it's ready to go. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 04:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflicts when attempting to revert obvious trolling/personal attacks
I know I've mentioned the issue before, but seriously there must be a way to avoid situations like this:  This not only lends more attention to the trolls who write this crap, it also creates more work for people attempting to revert it. Any ideas on how to avoid this? — CharlotteWebb 11:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11:17, January 12, 2007 HagermanBot (Talk | contribs) m (85.74.227.135 didn't sign: "WARNING: NikoSilver is MEMBER OF THE WIKIPEDIAN GREEK CHAUVINIST JUNTA")
 * Click history and then revert again? Although I agree the edit summary bit could use some work, the edit conflict will only slow you down for a couple seconds at most. --tjstrf talk 11:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been looking into implementing a filter to detect vandalism, but it's pretty complicated. I recognize the importance of such a function though, so I will pursue it. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Your bot is a bit Quick
I think your bot is too fast at catching unsigned statements it must have been seconds if not instatly after i made my statement and realised i had not signed so gave me no opportunity to rectify my mistake. I personally think your bot should have a 1 min delay to allow people to rectify their own mistakes and not feel patronised by having mistakes instantly corrected by a bot.--13:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Seconded - I've just been caught for the same reason – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the notice at the top of the page. If you don't like the bot sig, then just go resign over the top of it. --tjstrf talk 17:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did read it - I added my comment to say I don't like it. – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a way of stoping the bot from autocorrecting my edits, like being taken of junk mail listings for example? cos i damn sure hope so --Lucy-marie 23:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep! Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Take yer bot & hang em, man Grye 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Point of Bot
People have the right to not sign their posts, as an ip I didn't and no one ever got mad at me for it, so what's the point of this bot???? Teak the Kiwi 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For people who don't know how or forget. People who don't want to would often find their posts "signed for them" using the unsigned template.  HB just saves users the chore of doing it. No big deal. Rich Farmbrough, 00:01 15  January 2007 (GMT).
 * And as for the "right" not to sign posts, that is absolutely incorrect: Sign your posts on talk pages. John Broughton  |  ♫ 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well... that's a guideline, it's not a policy. Teak the Kiwi does have every right to leave their posts unsigned, but HagermanBot has every right to leave the template. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 02:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent bot!
I think your bot is an excellent idea. Although it does make me ask the question - why isn't the functionality to automatically add signatures already built into Wikipedia for talk pages? Surely this would be a more ideal location for this functionality..? --Rebroad 12:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. If the developers ever implement that functionality into the MediaWiki script, I'll glady retire the bot. :-) Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 02:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor bug in your bot
Over on Wikiversity, it marks comments with " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by some_user, etc, etc". However, with the interwiki prefix Wikipedia:, it instead takes people to this non existent article. Could you tweak it to instead link to v:Wikiversity:Sign your posts on talk pages for Wikiversity? Cheers --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Slight oversight on my part! Thanks for catching that, I'll release a new build now. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Completed!  Hagerman ( talk ) 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :-) --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your bot hit the spot
Oops! Forgot to dash dash tilde tilde tilde tilde for my edits on Talk:University of Tasmania.

Done by your bot. Sincere thanks for that. And, moreover, 'Jolly good show' and all that sort sort of stuff.

Mmm... if you're ever in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, my Mum and Dad would be more than happy to put you up for a coupla days, or a week, or more or so. Better (and cheaper) than the YHA up on | Swanston Street...

And, umm, so on...--Shirt58 14:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ps: To fit in with what Young Folks These Days are saying, I also think the bot needs more cowbell.  . Oh, life was so much more simple when you could just say, 'All John Hancocks are belong to us"...--Shirt58 14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A John Hancock is fine too. — coe l acan t a lk  — 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL :-)  Hagerman ( talk ) 03:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fast bot
Your bot is really fast! Beats me to signing the comment after I realise it. :) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-)  Hagerman ( talk ) 03:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Monitor
Hello! I just wanted to pop in here and tell you your HagermanBot monitor is not functioning properly. It comes up as a "Can't be displayed" page. Hope this helps you. -- Dphantom15 20:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! I had taken the activity monitor service down temporarily while I made some changes to the system it runs on. Looks like I forgot to bring it back online. It will be back up in second or two. Thanks!  Hagerman ( talk ) 03:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Data
Just checking in to see what the data is, I have no clue how to use SQL personally. Just H 04:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Soon, I've been extremely busy releasing a new computer system at work and it's temporarily reduced my free time :-) Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 02:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! we're waiting! frummer 07:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

oops?
. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 15:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops! New build coming right up... Thanks!  Hagerman ( talk ) 03:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long, finally got a chance to make the changes. All should be well now! Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 04:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Hagermanbot play nice with other bots?
My bot, Peelbot, tags a lot of article talk pages with wikiproject banners. Although I haven't noticed a problem yet, I just want to check: is there a danger that HagermanBot will start interpreting these as unsigned messages, and start adding the unsigned tag to them? Thanks. Mike Peel 00:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bot wars are never good :-). But, based on the types of edits your bot is making, HagermanBot will ignore all of its edits. Since the edits all contain a template it will immediately ignore the edit. Thanks!  Hagerman ( talk ) 03:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reassurance. Mike Peel 10:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Too fast bot
Apologies, I did read the comment above but, whilst the speed of the bot is annoying because I do generally go back and sign my comments if I miss it first time, being reminded how to do it on my talk page is just unnecessary for established user - well intentioned I'm sure, it helps new users - but can't you tweak it to investigate the age of the user account first to avoid patronising people? Thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True, we don't want the bot harassing established users. The bot won't leave a warning though until a user leaves three unsigned comments in a 24 hour period. So it does require some pretty extensive activity to set it off. I'll try to come up with a pretty simple check, if you have any suggestions for the kind of logic that it should evaluate to determine if a user is established, I'm all open! Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 03:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I'm a pretty heavy user, add to that a bit of wikidrama yesterday at WP:AN and trialing AWB. I'd suggest either looking at when the first edit was - 4-6 months seems a reasonable threshold or look at the number of edits - shall we say 1000? completely arbitrary really but those sort of criteria are sometimes mooted as minimums at RFA's so we can perhaps say that if someone's over the admin candidacy threshold, they're established. cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

bot needs more cowbell
Your bot is limited to running a certain number of times per minute, right? I still see plenty of unsigned edits slip through. Any chance of getting more edit slots per minute for this thing? I'll chat up the botlords if you show me where, or you can just point them to this post as a show of public support. — coe l acan t a lk  — 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's gotta have more cowbell! The bot is actually approved to run without an edit limiter. The reason it is missing some unsigned comments is actually because my cable company has been having some pretty bad problems with their Internet service since late December. The connection tends to go down for a brief period several times per day. During the outage it doesn't pick up any unsigned comments.


 * Supposedly, the problems have been corrected a few days ago and I've noticed the connection has been pretty stable. However, this morning I did notice prior to leaving for work that it had gone down again for around 5 minutes. Once I'm certain that the network issues are no longer playing into unsigned comments, then I will begin to evaluate whether there is a threading issue with the bot software. Thanks!  Hagerman ( talk ) 03:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I see unsigned comments I'll try to remember to let you know about them so you can compare times and all that. If that'll potentially help you. — coe l acan t a lk  — 04:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks!  Hagerman ( talk ) 04:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's one. — coe l acan t a lk  — 05:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nifty
That's a neat bot. I'll admit that I don't know C#, but any chance of seeing the code for it? Anyways, I have a tendency to forget to sign my comments. I'm finding that I forget far less often, now that those embarrassing little notes are left after my comments. :) Bladestorm 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I forgot, I was going to redo it and sign! Craxy 18:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hagermanbot
I like Hagermanbot but some people still think that Hagermanbot is a "special feature" to some. Perhaps this can be explained somehow? Also, I really think that bot is a good idea, and devoted my current sig to it! --The preceding comment was signed by Us  e  r:Sp3000  (talk•contribs) 06:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL at your signature! :-) What do you suggest I change to better communicate the functionality of the bot? Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 13:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I realise that HagermanBot will always add   at the end but some newcomers may not know what Bots are. In other words, is there a way to make a different welcoming message so that it also briefly describes bots, admins or any other groups of the Wikipedia community? (If you get what I mean) --The preceding comment was signed by  Us  e  r:Sp3000  (talk•contribs) 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something in the documentation/descriptions, but I have a question. Does a tag need to be placed on an article talk page to entice HagermanBot to serve it? I ask because of one article talk page in particular which has had dozens of unsigned posts in the past year and a half, not one of which were signed by HagermanBot. Please forgive me for lacking a clue here! Athænara   ✉     11:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Hagermanbot should work automatically on article talk pages. However, the bot is fairly new, and hasn't been working for that period of time, and it doesn't sign old unsigned posts that have gotten stale. What page are you referring to, and what was the most recent unsigned post that you can see there? — coe l acan t a lk  — 12:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The page is Talk:Aliweb, and the last time I went through using for numerous posts was probably ... *checking history* ...   03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC).  To my knowledge, only one has slipped through since then.   Athænara    ✉     12:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like three posts were unsigned recently.   We'll just leave those diffs for Hagerman to investigate. See the section above,, for an explanation of what may be going on. — coe l acan  t a lk  — 12:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a serial Save pager who should use Show preview more often, an offender (with 5 socks, too) who did finally start signing (sometimes) a couple of months ago. In re the diffs: he posted nine times in less than an hour that morning, in several sections, with (probably) some of the format anomalies which HagermanBot ignores.  In any case, you have clarified that no specific tag is needed to summon HagermanBot!  Thanks very much for the speedy replies.   —Æ.    ✉     12:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot mistake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theta_role&curid=1246624&diff=102243494&oldid=102243489

—RuakhTALK 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The bot seems to be taking a break right now, by the way. It's not signing my userpage's posts, and hasn't done so in the past hour at least. :) -→ Buchanan-Hermit™ / ?! 03:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't see how that's a response to what I wrote? :-/ —RuakhTALK 06:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's related to a "bot mistake." Sorry if that wasn't clear. -→ Buchanan-Hermit™ / ?! 14:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

missed
Here's another one, — coe l acan t a lk  — 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't even notice the comments above this one; looks like the bot is down atm. Sorry for bugging ya. — coe l acan t a lk  — 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Great Bot with one caveat
Your bot is most definitely useful and necessary, though I have one problem with it. Currently, when it signs something it leaves a rather long message to the effect of "The previous unsigned comment was posted by..." in small text. The wording seems to give the impression that the editor who forgot to sign did something wrong. Can't the bot simply sign the editors username in a normal sized font with no additional text? --The Way 07:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK it just uses the standard unsigned template, which is used when you "sign" somebody else's work. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 15:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also don't like the fact the way this bot seems to cheerfully announce your wrongdoing. Ok, so I forgot to sign. Someone (namely, the bot author) decided that everyone must sign. Ok, I'll accept that. Ok - then - sign for me. But why the added text "The previous unsigned comment...."? What does it add? Nyh 13:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is doing exactly what our normal Template:unsigned does, the same thing that any user who was signing your post for you would use. — coe l acan t a lk  — 13:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It couldn't use your usual signature since it has no access to it if you personalize it. And the template clarifies the fact it did not try to impersonate you. Well... it's the way I see it -- lucasbfr talk 13:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I think this template needs to change. It already impersonates me (it claims that I wrote something), so why not do it in a more aggreable style? If it can't figure out my signature (why not, by the way? it's in the database...) then it should just use the default four-tilde format. I think. Nyh 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to propose a change to the template, please do so at Template_talk:Unsigned. :-) —RuakhTALK 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your bot
I do love it, but is there a way to give it some lag time (around a few minutes) and still be effective? Yank sox 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Sign
What is signing and why should I do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Rockefeller (talk • contribs)
 * Signing means to append ~ to your talk page or village pump post. You control what you see other than the date from the Signature entry in Preferences (first tab).  Signing means that we know who to reply to.  Otherwise, we are in the dark and have to check the history of the page. When I sign, my preferences provide this "Will (Talk - contribs) " plus the date. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I put something there - Is this better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Rockefeller (talk • contribs)
 * You put something where? You didn't sign here. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

what do you consider untrue ?
Do not insert your pseudo-scientific theories. The Slavic word sokoli you mentioned means "falcon, a kind of bird". You should know it, since you seem to be a Russian or Pole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Al-Bargit (talk • contribs) 09:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

A well deserved Barnstar
I know you have gotten another one sitting in your archive, but that bot deserves 2 or more! CodeCarpenter 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (see, I remembered this time)

The bot doesn't sign my user talk page
(moved back from archive 3... no reply has been received) Hey Chris, I added the code on my user talk page but the bot never signs it. I see it signs other article talk pages still, so I wonder if it is not designed to sign user talk pages? If you see something that I have not done correctly and have advice for me on how to get it to work, please leave me a post on my user talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerry lavoie (talk • contribs).

Something went well wrong here...
See this edit by your bot... The talk page had only one previous version from 2005/09 which was by 82.103.219.240 and was only the text "BD"... And then we get "ClaesWallin didn't sign: "Software to decode CSS on the fly?"" today?? Ta/wangi 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit was actually to Talk:BD+ - see this diff. Apparently the Bot choked on the "+" part of the page name.  -- John Broughton |  (♫♫) 03:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to sign.
Ah well.--Steven X 08:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Been there. Done that.  Seriously, it would help if the bot did nothing unless the edit was at least one minute old. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Malfunction
The bot keeps marking my talk on Talk:Areas in the Metroid series as unsigned, while I clearly put a signature in place both times. I haven't complained about it the first time because I thought it was a typo on my part (the signature template had "-- De" instead of "--De"), but now it did it again... --De Zeurkous (zeurkous@zeurcomp.nichten.info), Sunday January 28 11:23 UTC 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.127.68.21 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
 * See what I mean? --De Zeurkous (zeurkous@zeurcomp.nichten.info), Sunday January 28 11:24 UTC 2007

Orphaned fair use image (Image:20060828155920!GriffonLogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:20060828155920!GriffonLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

HagermanBot
Wow, I just discovered User talk:HagermanBot! What a great thing, finally someone did this. Congrats and thank you from (do I still need to sign this? -- yes, I do, because I don't want to load the servers with unnecessary pages) Kncyu38 19:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I love this!
I love Hagerman bot. And I am going to prove it by not signing this comment! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Nice one
Watch the little bot do its stuff: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SilkTork (talk • contribs) 16:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

That's quick! Hey, does this mean we no longer have to sign? SilkTork 16:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Buggy
- Not my comment yet it's signing it to me :-\? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

signing
What about when someone signed with a nick from other version of Wikipedia ;) ? Lothar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.9.225.135 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Hagermanbot
Hagerman, I wanted to leave a question about why the signing bot seems a little inconsistent. Sometimes it signs unsigned comments on my talk page, and other times it doesn't. For an example: this diff shows an unsigned comment that was left but not automatically signed by your bot. Only a couple minutes later, this unsigned message was left by the same user and it was signed by your bot. Thanks for your time. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot doesn't sign my user talk page
(moved back from archive 3... no reply has been received) Hey Chris, I added the code on my user talk page but the bot never signs it. I see it signs other article talk pages still, so I wonder if it is not designed to sign user talk pages? If you see something that I have not done correctly and have advice for me on how to get it to work, please leave me a post on my user talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerry lavoie (talk • contribs).
 * Answered on your talk page as requested.

Hagermanbot
Hagerman, I wanted to leave a question about why the signing bot seems a little inconsistent. Sometimes it signs unsigned comments on my talk page, and other times it doesn't. For an example: this diff shows an unsigned comment that was left but not automatically signed by your bot. Only a couple minutes later, this unsigned message was left by the same user and it was signed by your bot. Thanks for your time. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot mistake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theta_role&curid=1246624&diff=102243494&oldid=102243489

—RuakhTALK 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The bot seems to be taking a break right now, by the way. It's not signing my userpage's posts, and hasn't done so in the past hour at least. :) -→ Buchanan-Hermit™ / ?! 03:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't see how that's a response to what I wrote? :-/ —RuakhTALK 06:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's related to a "bot mistake." Sorry if that wasn't clear. -→ Buchanan-Hermit™ / ?! 14:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll fix that bug now. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 17:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Something went well wrong here...
See this edit by your bot... The talk page had only one previous version from 2005/09 which was by 82.103.219.240 and was only the text "BD"... And then we get "ClaesWallin didn't sign: "Software to decode CSS on the fly?"" today?? Ta/wangi 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit was actually to Talk:BD+ - see this diff. Apparently the Bot choked on the "+" part of the page name.  -- John Broughton |  (♫♫) 03:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the DotNetWikiBot framework appears to edit the wrong page because the + character is not properly substituted with the HTML encoded character when sending the data using the GET method. I'll patch it right now. Thanks!  Hagerman ( talk ) 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Malfunction
The bot keeps marking my talk on Talk:Areas in the Metroid series as unsigned, while I clearly put a signature in place both times. I haven't complained about it the first time because I thought it was a typo on my part (the signature template had "-- De" instead of "--De"), but now it did it again... --De Zeurkous (zeurkous@zeurcomp.nichten.info), Sunday January 28 11:23 UTC 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.127.68.21 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
 * See what I mean? --De Zeurkous (zeurkous@zeurcomp.nichten.info), Sunday January 28 11:24 UTC 2007
 * Did you register for a username? Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 18:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Heya - one bug in the bot re: trailing pluses
It appears that when operating on Articles for deletion/Exodus+, HagermanBot added signatures to Articles for deletion/Exodus instead. (I deleted that page; it just had two revisions of the bot's attempts to fix signatures on the plus-ful article.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that, I'll fix it now... Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 17:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot shouldn't be adding this to project pages
Why is your bot signing additions to project space pages? —Doug Bell talk 21:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That page is included in the scope of HagermanBot's search because of an include tag on Miscellany for deletion that instructs the bot to search all subpages of that page. To fix this, you can place a deny tag on the subpages you don't want the bot to search, as Xaosflux did (thanks, Xaosflux!) Best , Hagerman ( talk ) 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hinderance not a help.
The only thing this bot has done for me is interfere when I have accidentally left of my signature. Rimmeraj 08:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the bot, you are always free to opt out. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 17:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.
I appreciate your bot catching my mistake when I forgot to sign a recent comment. I appreciate the work you did setting it up.CarlFink 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Hagerman ( talk ) 01:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You very much for correcting my mistake! -Hikaruhataki

Delay
Yes, I know about your rationale for not including a delay. I think that could still be served by having a _short_ delay (e.g. five seconds), short enough to avoid conflict with anyone actually reading and replying, but long enough to allow someone who has an "oh crap" moment immediately after hitting the submit button (this has been the majority of times I've gotten autosigned) to click stop or back and add the signature and resubmit. --Random832(tc) 13:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I might consider it on a trial basis. I'll have to see. Thanks!  Hagerman ( talk ) 01:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's cool, it looks like your bot is operating through a rip in the space time continuum, and is adding unsigned sigs before the editor has posted, that's some great code. See here Cheers and it's not a problem. Khu kri  - 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy crap!  Hagerman ( talk ) 01:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, the page history says the comment was signed first, then posted, but this seems to indicate otherwise. Either way, that's one damn fast bot you've got there. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also kind of odd, this. Maybe the edits were made so close together that they caused some trouble with the database servers? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

delay reason
Hi Hagerman,

I see there is a reason for not delaying HagermanBot's edits __when editing User Talk pages__. Perhaps you could add a delay when other talk pages are concerned. I would like to propose a 5 minute delay at least, though an hour sounds good too. --MarSch 10:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot error
Just to let you know, the bot signed a "comment" for me on Articles for deletion/Death of a Band — what I actually did was apply the end-of-page closure template to an AFD that somebody else had closed improperly, so it was an edit that rightly shouldn't have been signed. Is there a way to flag that type of edit as an exception that the bot should skip? Thanks. Bearcat 12:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible problem when adding to a list on a talk page
HagermanBot added a unsigned comment to a entry I needed to add on a list of vandalised articles I placed on the Administrators incidents noticeboard (diff), which I don't think should be happening, as usually (as far as I am aware), additions to a list on a talk page shouldn't need signing for. Is there anyway that HagermanBot can avoid adding an unsigned tag for additions like this in the future. Other than that, thanks on creating a really useful bot. Regards --tgheretford (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: "An Automated Message from HagermanBot"
Regarding: "Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window.  This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 01:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)" Eh, please fix your bot to not leave messages like this on non-IP user talk pages that have existed for more than a month. We all forget to type ~ every now and then but don't need "welcome, newbie" messages about it. :-) My sig ratio is around 99.8% over the last 1.5 years, at an educated guess.  &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment
Why is this website so stupid? &#91;--anon&#93;

that was annoying
I forgot to sign something I had just posted, and immediately went to go add my sig, but the bot messed it up and intruded, it also seems to contain text which implied I maliciously didn't sign my text. I think you need a delay timer on your bot, so that non-malicious folks can take a few seconds to correct their own mistake. Thanks. -- NatsukiGirl \talk 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Response (edit conflict):

Not to intrude Hagerman, I'm sure you can answer for yourself, but I would suggest to both of the above posters that they utilize the very simple "opt out" option. The bot isn't necessary for everyone (especially if they are certain they nearly always sign or immediately correct their own error). However, it is on the whole extremely helpful to people in dialogue with new users or chronic non-signers. Further, a delay is unnecessary, as illustrated capably by the comment at the top of this talk page. Thanks and sorry to butt in, -- Tractor kings  fan  21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should I have to opt out of something I never opted IN for? -- NatsukiGirl \talk 21:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd edit
, where User:Lunch's addition got deleted by HagermanBot. Do bots automatically win edit conflicts, or something? Argyriou (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Need the bot to sign this non talk page
I have added the catagory to Community noticeboard, however it did not sign this edit here. Have I done everything correctly? Navou  banter  /  review me  02:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot messages on talkpages of users who forget to sign
Hi, any chance of programming your Bot to not explain how to sign talkpage comments to users with a certain number of edits? I mean it makes you feel a bit stupid when you have nearly 4000 edits (about 1500 to various talkpages), you get distracted and before you know it a bot is explaining how to sign talkpages ;-) . Cheers, WjBscribe 18:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Slight scope expansion
Can the bot be expanded to the RfA pages? I just had to sign for someone who didn't put anything more than "Support"... I'm not sure how common a problem this is, but it'd be another nice place to see your amazingly wonderful bot. :-) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship - I'm not sure whether there are times when a candidate answers questions, for example, where signing isn't normally done (and a bot "unsigned" message implies the candidate messed up, which could be read incorrectly). I could well be wrong about this; in any case, others could provide a definitive answer.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 03:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oooh... good point. I hadn't thought about that. I'm just gonna let this one go for now, unless I happen to see it occur again; in my on-again-off-again activities in RfAs, I've only seen it happen this one time, so it is quite possible that I've got a solution looking for a problem. :-) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the Bot does sign RfA pages. It certainly has signed for me when I've added links to previous RfAs and deliberate not signed, e.g. . I think it just didn't sign that one as was busy signing elsewhere. WjBscribe 03:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Slight change, possibly
What if the bot was modified to do the same as the 4 tilde signature, possibly with a Hagerman Bot or some such marker added? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MartinGugino (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

I love your bot!
Matan 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

HagermanBot
Just a thank you for creating a bot that rocks my world! Paz, Kukini 03:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Activity Monitor
So I tried to check what it was monitoring.. but the site seems to be down? So, can you message me whenever its up... or however you want to deal with that. MrMacMan 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
The HagermanBot is bot-tastic! Thanks for doing this. It's been needed. --Matthew UND (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot subpage follower
Appears to not be working on Adminship_survey. Help? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Delay
Yeah, it needs to wait more than a few seconds before adding a signature. — Omegatron 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree, with that. i went in to add in the forgotten signature and it already edited and caused me to receive an error saying wikimedia was down... --Ditre 15:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

HagermanBot can break HTML comments
Greetings! I, as many others, love HagermanBot, it is a great help in cleaning up after users who forget to sign their comments. However, over on WP:AIV, I have run across a problem with it. Take a look at this edit - it is not immediately clear in the diff, but if you edit either of the revisions in question, you will see that the line the bot signed was actually inside a multi-line HTML comment. Because HTML comments don't support any actual nesting, the end comment marker from the "HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned" comment actually closed out the entire HTML comment, causing the MediaWiki parser, and, subsequently, the HBC AIV helperbots, to get somewhat confused. I believe it would be most appropriate for the bot not to sign anything inside an HTML comment - this follows the MediaWiki parser's behavior of ignoring special sequences like ~ inside comments. Having just written comment parsing for the HBC AIV helperbots, I know this may be no easy task, but it would be of great help if it's possible. Thanks, and thanks for a very useful service! —Krellis 06:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you a moderator?
If so, could you ban Wrestlinglover420 from editing Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs), as he keeps vandalising it? He has resorted to calling me a Jackass when I asked for proof that what he kept writing was true.

HagermanBot on Help Desk
I added the help desk to the category of pages that the (extremely helpful) HagermanBot should automatically sign comments on. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working. Could you have a look please? Many thanks. Trebor 23:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is archived, does that mean that you read it?
If I left a suggestion, and the paragraph is archived, does that mean that you read the suggestion... er,, and dont like it? Martin | talk • contribs 03:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

HagermanBot
The HagermanBot doesn't seem to be marking unsigned comments at it's sandbox for the last 10 hours or so.  Kamope · ? · !   Sign!  01:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Your bot
Why not sign a talk page the normal way if someone forgets to? It would come across as less rude, condescending, and obnoxious. --Scandum 12:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cloning your bot
Hi! I came across your bot recently, and I would be interested in running a clone of it on the Hungarian Wikipedia, though I fear it would at start have some opposition, I'd like to do a test run. Please contact me, if you would be interested in helping spread your bot to other projects. Regards Dami --Dami 15:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why a signature bot?
I don't understand the utility of robotically signing unsigned comments. This clutters the change log for talk pages which I think is a bigger problem than unsigned comments; who cares that some anon IP address put a rude word on a talk page, for example? If you're really concerned about the edit, you can consult the page history and find the perpetrator; which page history would be a lot more terse if it wasn't filled with bot edits. --Wtshymanski 19:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot Speed
How does your bot work so fast? It signed my comment in about 10 seconds. (Please respond on my talk page so I will see it) Pcu123456789 06:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC) xxx

This is a automated to all bot operators
Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My edit on Poverty
It is right that I have unsigned but the moment I realised, immediately started editing but the system become unoperative as Bot started working and the entire system hanged as I was in edit mode and bot cound not edit till I finish.

This bot doing insulting work.vkvora 16:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
sorry, I keep on forgetting to sign my edits. Will do from now on Morpheuschongsies 05:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Relax
Wow, I forgot to sign an edit and now I am getting chastised by a bot. Relax a little, I forgot to sign and then went back and signed my edit immeadiatly. Gimme a chance!! EMT1871 00:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)(see I didnt forget this time!!!!)


 * Rather than say “relax”, let's say lag. It's a bit much when you act in less than a minute. —SlamDiego 20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated message to bot owners
As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Bot Policy: "Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds." Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 02:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Great bot
This bot's doing some great work. People who hadn't signed my talk page had their comments signed with the unsigned user template within seconds. I'm almost sure one happened less than a second! Great work. ĤĶ51→Łalk 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A good idea in theory...
...but the bot is not sophisticated enough to spot all forms of signature. DavidFarmbrough 00:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

thx
thank you, that will come in handy! Nonononono 05:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

end of transferred messages
Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 11:04 27 February 2007 (GMT).

Edit conflict report
It seems that the bot doesn't always notice that it's hit an edit conflict and ends up reverting other work. Just thought you'd want the bug report. --Tardis 16:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it have to be so fast?
Many times I'll notice I forgot to sign and immediately go back to add a sig, only to find that Hagermanbot has beat me to it. Could you put even a short delay on the bot to give users a chance to fix the sig themselves? Even 30 seconds or a minute would probably be plenty. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the top of this page. Trebor 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Its not vandalism, Its true, and it keeps in line with many other bios that have birthnames one them. (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Story?id=3082803&page=1)
 * Barry was his nickname, not his birthname.  Hagerman ( talk ) 04:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dittlelifferent (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Hagerman, I see that you placed something on my page about an editing war on the Jack Graham page - I agree, and have asked DirkMavs to discuss the subject instead of arbitrarily editing out information (he doesn't provide a reason for his deletion) Additionally, he placed personal information about my family on this history page. His conduct is not civil according to wiki standards. Would you please help me on this? My comments on Graham's page should remain unless someone has good reason to remove them, not just because someone doesn't like them.Doublet89 (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors who find themselves on the verge of 3RR violations have several options to avoid engaging in such an edit war. These options include discussing the subject on the article Talk page, requesting a third opinion or comment on the article, or one of the many other methods of dispute resolution. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 04:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Welcome back! Glad to have you around again!  W ODU P  05:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :)  Hagerman ( talk ) 05:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Pleasant surprise.  Enigma  message 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just saw your name: welcome back. Acalamari 20:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone :)  Hagerman ( talk ) 00:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Um...
...technically, that's his page, so he can't really vandalise it. Besides, I've already SDed it as an attack page, so... Half Shadow  02:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, looks like a bug (or perhaps a misfeature) with huggle. It gave me the option to put a speedy delete tag on the page instead when it noticed he created the page, but I noticed you already placed the tag there, so I hit no, assuming it would not do anything. But it did the warning anyway... Let me pull that off his page. Best,  Hagerman ( talk ) 02:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hell, some days I can beat bots to the punch. Half  Shadow  03:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha :).  Hagerman ( talk ) 03:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Shockwave photo
Howdy, I'm preparing to redo/update the Kings Dominion page, and wanted to know if I could use your photo of Shockwave on it. It looks like the license you've given it permits use on the Kings Dominion page, but I've been hassled by photo authors before so I wanted to make sure it's okay. Actually, if you don't mind, I'd like to put it on the "Stand-up coaster" and "TOGO" (the manufacturer of the ride) pages as well. Let me know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigThunderMtn (talk • contribs) 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! :)  Hagerman ( talk ) 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Extreme quality assurance
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Extreme quality assurance, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * WP:Notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ismarc (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:KingsIsland.png
Thank you for uploading File:KingsIsland.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 05:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please make your bot add actual signatures
Adding names to unsigned posts means nothing. You should mention they didn't sign by themselves and add the date and time. In other words, please use to sign unsigned posts! -79.180.25.233 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Hagerman ( talk ) 13:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Hagerman ( talk ) 18:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)