User talk:MaintenanceBot

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Enabled[edit]

This bot has been enabled. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Mmmk[edit]

Pretty sure the copyright detail was already fixed on this image earlier in the month? PatrickBateman (discusscontribs) 08:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There was information on this image, but I cannot find it and now I can't log in to just delete...any ideas on how to fix this? - (by 208.88.255.37 - 02:49, 13 November 2013‎)

I'm not sure, because I don't know who left this message or what image you are referring to. Can you be more specific? I can delete the file or add information for you, but I need to know which way to go and/or what to add, and where. Thanks! -- MaintenanceBot (discusscontribs) 03:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Bot caused syntax error by editing within a quiz[edit]

Hi, I just reverted this change: https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia/Quizzes&oldid=1566841

The edit seems to have broken the quiz in the page. Mvolz (discusscontribs) 15:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it OK now?[edit]

Regarding the image copyrights and related information required. --G10sinha (discusscontribs) 17:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Project-"ownership"[edit]

You have linked A note about project-"ownership" as explanation for your recent removals of my authorship templates (like here). But nothing in there suggests that articles with a unique author should not contain a reference to the author. So these are not the kind of uncontroversial edits that should be done by a maintenance bot - especially not without consultation on my talk page. Virtually all of my articles have only me as an author. The correct way to cite them would by "by Watchduck" or "by T. Piesk" - not even "by Watchduck et al.", as is common for wikis. As long as this is the case, there is nothing wrong with making that visible on the page. Stating my authorship is not meant to discourage other users from contributing, and I would not mind modifying the template to make that clear. (Although, in accordance with the guideline you cited, I think it would be bad manners and rather unnecessary for someone to make non-trivial changes on my articles without talking to me first.) Watchduck (quack) 20:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't use author logos at Wikiversity, and we don't sign main page resources here. The reference to the author or authors is maintained in page history. If you feel it is necessary to promote yourself in your efforts, please create generic main pages and move these pages to subpages of the generic main page content. This would be better anyway, as many of the pages you have created are individual pages rather than Wikiversity:Learning projects. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The history could be full of bot edits (image renaming), vandalism, and people correcting typos. It is pretty unusual that the visitors of an article are supposed to find out on their own who the author is. My main articles here are Full octahedral group and Inversion (discrete mathematics). Where do you think I should move them? What exactly do you mean by "individual page"? It would be great if your "we don't" statements would be accompanied by links to some policy. Watchduck (quack) 21:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding "It is pretty unusual that the visitors of an article are supposed to find out on their own who the author is", please identify other mainspace articles on either Wikipedia or Wikiversity that do identify the author in the page content. I've edited 28,500+ pages on Wikiversity[1], and I'm not familiar with this common identification of which you write.
Regarding Full octahedral group, it would appear that it should be under a learning project named Octahedral symmetry. Inversion (discrete mathematics) appears to be named correctly, but it shouldn't duplicate Wikipedia:Inversion (discrete mathematics) and should involve active learning opportunities for users. As written, it is not clear how users apply this information, or why it is here instead of at Wikipedia.
You might want to review Wikiversity:Colloquium, Wikiversity:Requests for deletion, and Wikiversity:Community Review, among others, as these content and naming issues are being discussed, and the direction is not consistent with what you describe as your usual experience. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
"It is pretty unusual..." was a general statement about articles that do have a unique author, not a specific one about articles in a wiki.
My articles are here and not on Wikipedia, because they usually contain elements that would be considered original research in Wikipedia, or go more into detail than a Wikipedia article should. The Inversion article on Wikipedia could be described as a shortened version of my article here. I don't understand what you would see as an improvement, unless you mean to say, that the more detailed illustrations and examples in the article here should just be deleted.
"Octahedral symmetry" and "Full octahedral group" are just different ways to describe the same topic.
If you think my articles break some rule, please say so, and I will consider to make some changes or to stop contributing to Wikiversity.
Otherwise I am happy to end the conversation. The authorship matter is not that important to me. Watchduck (quack) 18:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

image has the information/and a license why did I get an email about deletion?[edit]

---Joshua (discusscontribs) 09:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@J.M.Pearce: Files that appear in Category:Files with no machine-readable author‎, Category:Files with no machine-readable description, Category:Files with no machine-readable license‎, and Category:Files with no machine-readable source‎ are targeted for notice. File:Recyclebox.jpg had no source or author information. A description of "I made this" is insufficient. See [2] for the proper way to identify your contributions and avoid notices and/or deletions. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Automatic edits destroying the layout of old pages[edit]

I have just found (and undone) two edits that have automatically replaced <font color=bluh>blah</font> that work by {{font|color=bluh|blah}} that do not work:

Please do not make changes when you can not be sure the result actually works. The web is very backward compatible, so there is no need to break things because they are not HTML5. When in doubt, please just leave things the way they are. Watchduck (quack) 18:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)