Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2011-11/User:GedawyBot for bot status (2)

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User:GedawyBot for bot status (2)[edit]

  • Nomination: I hereby request the Bot flag for User:GedawyBot for the following purpose:
    Interwiki (Examples: [1], [2], [3]). I didn't pass the first request as i forgot to type the prameter -wiktionary before running my bot, And that caused wrong edits. Now, My bot runs in all wiktionaries and has bot flag in 70 wiktionaries (Including: fr, de, it). I can do more test edits if you want. Thanks in advance.
  • M.Gedawy 12:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Vote started: 12:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Stephen (Talk) 08:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dan Polansky 10:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC) The bot owner is a hasty, somewhat careless person, by superficial impression. Luckas-bot (talkcontribs) does interwiki just fine, so we are in no bad need of one more bot. --Dan Polansky 10:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    Hello Dan Polansky. Can I please just know the reasons why you are calling the owner of this bot "hasty" or "careless" ? Apart from entering one time a wrong command line, I never heard any problem for this bot, and I checked what it did in a dozen of wikis. And he noticed of his mistake less than 24 hours after the bug, which is not really careless for a bot owner who has 100+ wikis to monitor. Moreover, one interwiki bot is to my mind not sufficient for maintaining the lang links of a big projects such as enwiktionary (I think that it is now the WMF projects that has the highest number of pages). Cordially, -- Quentinv57 16:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I tend to Dan's opinion, but would like to hear other views. The vote deadline should be extended —Saltmarshtalk-συζήτηση 14:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


Well, the vote's been officially over for more than a day and, despite the suggestion above, no one's extended it, so I'm going to call it: Failed 1–1.​—msh210 (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)