text:
by BAG is worth the efficiency of getting 99.9% of the bots that are approved ruuning quickly. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Who suggested shutting down BAG? You say I'm wearying to discuss things, how much hyperbole is necessary? You can't address the issues I raise. You ignore my posts. You have a community-sanctioned ex-member representing himself as a BAG member, you support him personally attacking me. (You as the plural.) Do you realize how easy it would be to just discuss the issues, not get personal, not raise the ridiculous? Much easier and less wearying. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not arguing sincerely. Every time I post a sincere comment for discussion I get derailed, by Betacommand and you his ardent supporter, with ridiculous comments about "waiting for Godot," when it's well know what community consensus is, by hyperbole about waiting forever, and closing down BAG. I can't argue any of that with sincerity, as its purpose was not to raise sincere issues but to attack me personally and avoid discussing the issues at all. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't really care about Betacommand, and barely know him, so don't know where that's coming from. My "shutting down BAG" comment should be read in the context of the general response to your suggestions: what if the community can't be bothered (as now) to show up?  Do we do as we do now and try getting them involved (except in a couple of cases), but ultimately approve on technical merits if it appears uncontroversial?  You seem to be suggesting that this is unacceptable: if so, the reality is that BAG's processes will grind to a halt because noone in the wider community seems to care - that, in essence, is "shutting down" BAG.  As I keep saying, tell us if you have some idea of getting the community involved, because we really, really want them to be. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe you should know who Betacommand is since he recently, in a comment to me, represented himself as a member of BAG.
 * You made these huge assumptions, that if no one comments then the whole process grinds to a halt. It doesn't, in any way, follow.
 * Not all bot tasks are equal. If they were, simply looking over the code might be an allowable way of operating BAG. If no one comments on the RFBA for the replacement for the RFBA board bot, that won't harm the community. If no on comments on a bot that adds thousands of links, even if the link is added via a template, that could harm the encyclopedia if the bot were allowed to go forward. So, there's plenty to actually discuss, that the hyperbole casts aside. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to re-read what people say. I never said that I was BAG my exact quote was if there is a specific BRFA that you want reviewed let us know and we can take a closer look the we that you see there is referring to is the community. So please stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say. βcommand 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not omnipresent on Wikipedia - I know Beta vaguely and indirectly through various appearances at Arbcom and ANI, but not personally, and certainly not his interactions with you. I am not making huge assumptions - I am demonstrating the logic of your proposal:  you appear (that's an invitation to correct me if I'm wrong) to be saying that all bot approvals should require community input.  My comment is that the status quo is that noone comments.  Given these two points, a need for input to approve coupled with a lack of input will mean that the approvals process will grind to a halt.  You said in another venue that we haven't tried everything to get the community engaged, but won't tell us what to try - if you tell us something must be done that we aren't doing, but won't help us by tlling us what that something is, then this conversation will never have a conclusion. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to IP69, the CobraBot 1 BRFA was not appealed by anyone (I think that's what they're trying to pursue here, along with several other things) and is still valid; I only paused running it until the discussions about it were resolved (with no consensus against the task); the reason task 1 isn't running currently is because CobraBot successfully completed its pass over all the articles in Wikipedia using Infobox book. If IP69 wants to appeal task 1, they are free to do so. --Cyber cobra (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I would like it rolled back, also, if there is no clear idea that the community wants these links activated. Probably a rollback discussion will gain more community input. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would that be superior to just simply modifying the template? --Cyber cobra (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that. I personally think modifying the template to make it an inactive link would be preferable, kinda the best of both worlds, since that was one of the big complaints about the OCLC< but others may have ideas about the best course of action, if any. --IP<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I would encourage you to rekindle the discussion at Template talk:Infobox book regarding changing the linking of the OCLC parameter. --Cyber cobra (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In our defence, that's kind of what we've been saying about this issue for the past few days. If you get consensus, I'll edit the template myself! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, yes, but you're so hostile to outsiders it's not a surprise that editors are uncomfortable coming here to discuss issues. Why not just answer my initial posts as if they were discussions instead of going overboard.
 * And, no, it still doesn't add up to no bots on en.wikipedia. Some bots don't need much or any community consensus. The bagbot for example, bag operators will monitor it, the operator is experienced. It doesn't even really matter if the community has any input on it, it's not working in mainspace.
 * A bot that adds links to mainspace by the thousands? It doesn't matter that it was through a template. If BAG doesn't have the sense to know this needs community input, then this should be put in the rules. Bots that edit mainspace require community support. Lack of disagreement is not sufficient. Some times it won't matter much. The Zh bot is editing an already deprecated template. The operator knows he can't step into the mess around simplified/traditional and made it clear he won't.
 * But, the BAG conclusion that just because en.wiki editors don't come here willingly to get fried by BAG means any bot can be approved if it's technically accurate is not a sensible decision.
 * I'll ask at infobot book if the template needs to be changed or the bot needs to be rolled back. But, cobrabot 1 should be blocked. It's not been approved by community consensus. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but where have I been hostile? I am trying to engage in discussion with you, but you won't answer my questions, which would help me out.  Instead you seem to be tarring me with some brush based on negative interactions with other users.  On that basis, I will disengage from this discussion until answers to my questions on clarifying your position and how we can engage the community are answered.  Fritzpoll (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted a discussion as suggested. I notified everyone who had commented on that page. I have not notified anyone who commented in the AN/I, although there may be other interested users from that list. I will also post a link to this discussion at the Village Pump. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very disappointed by the response here. Issues about consensus, duty of care and general governance are being sidestepped. It seems that no complaint or concern about the wider issue of bot operation can be discussed here without memebers of BAG seeing it as an attack upon them as a project or as individual editors. This should be forum where all the issues about bot actions should be put forward, discussed and resolved to everyone's satisfaction, rather than taking place at individual template or article talk pages. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin - I am trying to engage with it - I keep asking what ideas people have to get the community more involved. That gets sidestepped - we have a problem, because we want to get the community more involved but they do not come.  IP says there are ideas we have not tried: I simply want to know what they are.  That is not seeing it as an attack, nor is it sidestepping - but considering we've been through this issue a lot, we need fresh ideas, not just to be told we need to do better.  It is the difference between "you are failing!" and "Why haven't you tried method X of getting people involved?" - one is constructive and can progress dialogue, and the other is simply highlighting a problem we are already aware of. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree with you 100%, Gavin. BAG members see complaints, even questions, as attacks. BAG boards should be where where issues are discussed, but it's not allowed. If an editor comes here with concerns they should expect to be personally attacked, goaded, insulted, flamed and blocked, like I have been. Now it appears I am to be stalked by Betacommand, a sanctioned and once banned wikipedia editor and BAG member, who sees BAG as a safe place for admin-supported name-calling. And for good reason. It is. IMO, you are right, Gavin, that this is a problem for the entire wikipedia community.

 * However, there is an underlying issue about this CobraBot, linking to the worldcat. Outside links should have widespread community support before implementation. Right now community members are discussing (at the template talk page) what BAG should have gained consensus for before approving the bot: should the template link to worldcat. If community consensus is that it should be linked, adding the OCLC becomes simply a technical issue with a bot: is there a bot that can do it.

 * BAG failed to gain community consensus for other bots. At this point, the BAG seems to be saying they have no duty to gain consensus and that lack of comment equals community consensus. IMO this is wrong. But the issue of community consensus for bots requires a wider audience that cannot be gained at BAG due to the hostility here toward outsiders. I think that the wider audience at BAG for the Cobra Bot issue in general (fast decisions by BAG members without community consensus) may be gained in part from editors discussing the OCLC linking, and from those who participate in other discussions about community consensus for bots. IMO it's a way to start trying to get community members to come here and discuss bots.

 * Since all of my suggestions here get me attacked by BAG members and former BAG members, there's no point in my suggesting ideas. So I'll try it this way and see how it works. I have other ideas. IMO BAG has no community blessing to move forward with bots just because no one said "no." In particular this is the case for a BAG that is so hostile to outside opinions that any member of the community would be a fool to step forward, speak up, and chance becoming a target like I have become. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Input on CobraBot - how I got it
I searched to find discussions about the most important part of the OCLC issue, and I found a place where it was being discussed. I invited editors who had expressed an opinion in the past, inviting all editors in a discussion, whatever side of the issue they were on, delivering a neutral invitation and not opening the discussion with my own opinion on the issue. Invited editors came by, expressed their opinions on the matter. It appears there is support for linking the OCLC number externally to the worldcat website. Not just by numbers, but generally there were positive expressions for the functionality of the usage.

I have an additional concern about the linking, that I would like to be addressed, there, but I don't think it stands in the way of this issue.

In my opinion this is one very positive and straight-forward way to gain community input on a bot: 1. identify any issues that are community concerns rather than mere technical concerns. 2. find the community this impacts 3a. neutrally invite members of that community to a neutral and logical location for discussing the issue 3b. create the discussion.

It seems to me this isn't that hard. The animosity of the bot boards toward outsider opinions makes it hard have an opinion here. Wikipedia isn't the only place where I participate in discussions with strangers on the web, but it's the only place I have such a negative reputation. I'm not the only one to mention how hostile the bot boards are to outsiders. If you want community input, you have to learn to identify the community as people who are potentially outsiders. If someone is not concerned in a negative way about an issue, they may not bother to speak up. If they are concerned, and they speak up here, they need to be deal with for their concerns directly, in a civil manner at all times.

The discussion about OCLC.

Once the underlying community impact concerns are dealt with the bot is just a matter of technical approval. Does it do what it says, is the operative willing and able to respond to community issues that may arise, a trial run, does the trial run raise any glitches. None of this really needs more than monitoring by bots members, if they are monitoring that. It also kinda negates the issue of timelines if the community support is in place and the bot is reduced to technical matters.

So, imo, this is how it can be done in a way that gets community support for bots. Find the community that is impacted, politely and neutrally seek their input, allow them time to speak, then move forward on technical matters. It seems to me, also, from the bots policy, that this actually what was originally intended for how the bot approval process should work. However, bot members have moved from failing to get community input, due, imo, to how hostile this area is to outsiders, to saying that community consensus is not necessary or that if the community doesn't offer any negative input then the bot can go ahead.

--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone disagrees with your basic point about community input and all would agree that, in retrospect, it probably would have been better if CobraBot 1 had remained open longer and/or been publicized (I just didn't think of it at the time and Kingpin didn't think it would be a controversial task [nor did I for that matter]). Perhaps "notify related talkpages/WikiProjects" should be a required step in the application form, but then there could be talkpage spam and WP:CREEP issues. --Cyber cobra (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current instructions cover it already. And creep issues don't bother me when the rules seem obvious, but aren't followed. I think that requiring or asking the bot owner to make a better effort to gain community consensus, with some offered guidelines to finding the potential community issues, would not be a bad thing for bots on wikipedia. Again, once you eliminate community concerns by gaining community consensus for the bot in the first place, the rest of it is just technical issues. I don't see any particular failures in this area for the bots on wikipedia that need more attention then they're already getting.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This goes back to the dead horse of trying to get more community input. As been shown before they largely ignore what happens with Bots unless they disagree after the fact. Q  T C 22:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just got community input about the bot. It wasn't that difficult. What dead horse of trying to get community input? --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You got input on the bot (sort of), but you did not get consensus for it; technically you only got community agreement about linking to the Worldcat site in the template. That indirectly removed the one known objection about the bot, but no one actually knew that the link to wordcat would be controversial until after the bot ran. That didn't get consensus for the bot, only one aspect of the task. There's still the issues of whether it should be used in situations where we have the ISBN and whether it should be populated by a bot at all. These just haven't been found to be controversial. By the definition you were using earlier, they still don't have consensus because they have not been specifically discussed. Its a lot easier to do such things in hindsight. What we need to be able to do is determine the things that might be controversial before the fact. Mr.Z-man 23:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, these are all valid points. I did not essentially get community consensus for the bot. This might be harder to get. In fact I picked a task that was recently discussed so that I could get interested editors to comment on it. I think the issue of whether it should be populated by a bot should have been addressed before it was done, also. And, no, it doesn't have consensus. And, yes, bots needs to be able to determine whether something is controversial beforehand.
 * So, how do you do this? Well, in my opinion, you correctly identified these as issues that need addressed for future bots: should the task be done by a bot at all? It helps by breaking it down into specific tasks. Is there consensus for externally linking the parameter has the potential for being the most contentious issue about this one bot, and bots adding external links should always have higher scrutiny, imo. So, the bot operator may have to initiate a few discussions, including a major one about whether the task should be done by a bot at all. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is a little in circles, because you're saying seek community input, but ignoring our basic problem that they won't come here. So ok, here is a possible solution - in the BRfA, the operator must show that they attempted to gain consensus for an action that widely impacts the articlespace.  That is, by starting discussion in an appropriate location, which will hopefully be watched more than the approval itself would ever be - we do this during the approvals process now for a lot of bots, so let's formalise it and make it apply to all bot requests that impact the articlespace.  For instance, there is some bot that is up for approval to substitute one template for another, to which my first comment was "the linked discussion shows no consensus".  If we get the operator doing the work first and showing positive consensus (or silence) in a different location to our domain, and at least showing a reasonable effort to get the same, then we may gain more confidence in our activities.  Not sure about the details of this - might need some work, but I guess if I want a constructive and new idea I must propose one myself. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, imo it's important enough to gain community consensus for bots that impact mainspace that it should be actively sought. If editors won't come here, it should be, imo, the responsibility of the bot operator to show their task has consensus in some way. I suppose for some tasks showing a lack of concern or lack of input would be okay. For example, with already deprecated templates. Sure ask the community, but if the community has already decided to change the template, and no additional comments are forthcoming, then it's probably fine. Yes, reasonable effort to gain community consensus, for bots that impact mainspace, then the activity for bots members really is about technical aspects of the bot. For bots that would impact the servers, maybe some time of community consensus should be required also, but that's really a technical issue.
 * Again, once you turn it into just a technical issue for BAG members and the interested community if any, times aren't that critical, either.
 * I think that bot policy as it stands already requires this, but it's not implemented because of the difficulty in gaining community consensus, so maybe just a formalization of methods for showing community consensus or something would suffice. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we'll have to allow for silence to equal consensus - but by forcing bot operators to show they tried, it allows us to view whether they've tried sufficiently hard. BAG is essentially selected on the basis of technical expertise - all we're ever going to be able to do is judge based on other discussions whether there is consensus.  If the rest of my colleagues will agree that we should add another parameter to the request for approval template of "Show links to community discussion for mainspace edits:" or words to that effect, with a short update to the documentation, then I think this will resolve all possible concerns and give us a more viable process.  I invite thoughts from the rest of BAG Fritzpoll (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think in some cases there will have to be an allowance for silence equals consensus, particularly if bot operators showed they made a well-founded attempt to gain community input. There may be tasks where the default value should be not to go forward without positive community consensus, though, such as adding anything in mainspace that links externally. Adding words to that effect may be useful. I remain concerned that a bot that added external links was quickly approved without consensus, though, so I would like some notice to BAG members, or some sign, that indicates that community consensus is important, so, preferably the issue does not rise again, that a bot is quickly approved without input from the community. If it does happen again, though, what should be done about it? --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I would support something along those lines, but I would be a little worried by a blanket statement like "any bot editing mainspace". A bot doing interwiki linking or category maintenance doesn't need the same amount of consensus as a bot editing the content or references, though they're all editing mainspace. However, a bot leaving messages on user talk pages like for image copyright issues may need more attention due to potential WP:BITE issues. Mr.Z-man 00:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that bots doing interwiki probably need no consensus or rather already have it. With category maintenance bots, are these bots changing cats that have changed due to user discussions at CFD? Or elsewhere? In these cases, without instruction creep, can we say that consensus is already established?
 * Another good particular point, bots leaving message on user talk pages need more consensus than an interwiki bot. Tjese bots appear to be questioned extensively at bots, and there is the opt-in, opt-out issue. If the bots are opt-in only, it's a different issue than bots tagging user pages. I don't think we can cover everything, and I'm not sure what should be done about these, or what problems there are with these bots, if any. I assume users might get ticked off at having messages on their talk pages. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought about that after I logged off - I guess what we'd be after is non-maintenance editing of articlespace and talkpage editing should probably get a similar consensus, but presumably our standard of venue (not necessarily documented, but in practice) should be higher in scale with the potential impact of the bot within the community. If a bot is editing biographies only, we might be satisfied to ask the relevant Wikiprojects and policy pages to chip in, but talkpages might require at least an invitation at a centralised discussion venue.  Wording that into a bit of general guidance (so that we don't have to specify every possible scenario) would be helpful Fritzpoll (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I sneer at concerns about instruction creep, but, then, when faced with this and all the exceptions I see the problem. Personally, I think that the community consensus requirement already in the bots policy covers this, along with common sense. The issue is to make sure that all BAG members are on board with the understanding that mainspace edits and user talkpages require proactive community consensus, before a bot is approved, or really even discussed at RFBA, in other words, a link to the discussion specifying that the bot task is desired by the community. Interwiki edits to mainspace probably don't require any community consensus. Deprecated templates require a link to the change of template. Talk page edits require broad community discussion and support. Can this be bulletted and linked to rather than actually put in the policy, sort of like guidelines?
 * In my opinion, the bot policy already requires all of this, but it has not been actively honored, due in part to the lack of community input on bots, and possibly also due to lack of clarity in policy being applied to different categories of bots. I don't think that most members of the community would disagree with these basic findings in wrap-up: mainspace bot edits require proactive community support, except for interwiki edits, except for maintenance edits; talk page bots require broad community discussion, any type of bot that will be placing something on a user's talk page. Once this has been cleared up, and bots are put on this board for RFBA requests, the rest is technical input from BAG.
 * Maybe what could be added, as someone suggested above, is a place in the RFBA template to link to the community discussion. Then a bot owner could link or note the bot is only doing interwiki? Plus a notice to all BAG members about the requirements here? --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the practical outcome of this discussion will be a template change and a small instruction addition to fill it in, but we need to discuss it this way in part to try to make our approach to its use consistent Fritzpoll (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, I think this is a big step in the right direction to making bots more of a community work. I agree with Mr. Z-man that there are a lot of holes still, but I think it will only get better from this point with a focus on not just how but when to get community consensus, or when it matters. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 08:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to make minor adjustments to approval process
To satisfy the concerns of the above and punt issues back to the community before mistakes can be made, and following on from the above, I propose the following: Issues may arise around "appropriate", but I do not think we should formalise this in some policy. Instead, as guidance, the question must be of impact - if the bot edits mainspace content then an attempt must be made by the operator to get some wider approval. This is not wildly variable to what we do now, except we place the onus on the bot op to obtain consensus in advance of an approval request, allowing us to concentrate on technical aspects. All we have to do, then, is to be happy that the criterion in bot policy have been met. This can also give the flagging crats a discussion that is independent of BAG. To conclude, a minor change, but one that improves our workflow, cuts down on erroneous approvals (at least from a consensus point of view) and improves the appearance of BAG and what we do. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I'm about to make a few preliminary edits to the BRFA instructions, but that's not an attempt to derail this discussion, it's just one step here that we should obviously take care of. Anomie⚔ 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bot operators requesting approval must show, where appropriate, that community discussion has occurred and established consensus for their task, or that an attempt was made to obtain the same with no or limited input from the community. A field should be added to the request form for this.
 * Personally, I'm not sure it is all that useful to add a field to the BRFA form that a significant fraction of requests will have no use for (and that the requestors of those requests will likely be confused by). It might be better to just update the comment on the "Details" and/or "Discussion" sections to point out that links to previous consensus on the issue are greatly helpful, and to use more liberally. And IMO, whether the community consensus happens before the request or whether the request gets put on hold while consensus is sought is no big deal, since either way BAG will have to look over the consensus discussion and since the major problem with our workflow is in most BAGgers being relatively inactive rather than in having too many discussions to manage. Anomie⚔ 16:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it matters whether the discussion is before or after the BRFA, but it makes it clearer, IMO for BAG and for bureaucrats flagging bots and for users who participate in the bot boards and on the bot discussions, if the discussion is simply had prior to the BRFA. It also, imo, deals with the issue of bureaucrats making the same mistake that BAG members have about level of controversy. So, I would rather see it done before the BRFA. It makes it straight-forward what BAG does, which is largely what BAG has been doing, going over the technical aspects of the bots.
 * I'm not sure it matters, either, whether it is in the request form or on the details or discussion sections. If it's on the request form, operators who are doing interwikis can simply state there that it's an interwiki, operators doing maintenance on categories that have been changed can note that and link to the category discussion. The form is not that onerous, and, again, it makes it easier, imo, for everyone else outside of BAG to be sure that everything is done. It has the potential, imo, to eliminate a lot of problems if it's simply on the form. It can say if applicable as a disclaimer. My tendency is to think it better on the form, but it seems it would be better to have it on the form. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll end up having some discussions "during" the BRFA anyway, since people are not good at following directions and IMO it would be annoying and pointless for the prospective bot op to have the request denied just because they didn't take care of the consensus discussion beforehand. Whether a field ends up in the template or not, I don't care that strongly.
 * As a practical consideration I'm fine with not denying a bot because it wasn't discussed beforehand. Experienced operators will know to do it, and this might end up with turning off inexperienced bot operators, which would be a bad thing, imo. So, although I prefer to have it in the template, I'm okay if it's handled another way. And, if it's in the template, I'm fine with not denying a bot if the community consensus discussion doesn't take place before hand. In addition BAG members or community members may feel that an additional community consensus discussion or another type of community consensus discussion is what is needed, rather than what was done beforehand. It appears that BAG members don't mind if bot requests sit on this board for a while, so I don't see that as a problem. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For things like interwikis and CfD bots, it should be sufficient to point to another bot that's already doing the task to show that community consensus exists. --Carnildo (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Carnildo, essentially for interwikis and CfDs the consensus has already been obtained. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to template
"If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task in the appropriate fora. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects. Link to this discussion from your request for approval."

This looks fine to me. The instructions are not as onerous, imo, as many on wikipedia, and they're actually written and designed for the inexperienced user to be able to follow them. A bit strange the place on wikipedia where a template can actually be followed by a new user is the template least likely to be used by an inexperienced user.

And, thanks Anomie, for changing the wording earlier on the approval of a trial. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't think there is need to get prior community approval as long as it is reasonable to think there will be no objection and the bot is approved here. We don't need to do a big discussion for everything, only those things expected to be controversial. While the words "where appropriate" seem to cover this, it also makes the statement fairly meaningless imho.  Chillum   00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The question, though, is where to draw the "reasonable" line. Historically we've erred a bit on the side of assuming things will be unobjectionable. Since I joined BAG I've tried to swing that a bit more towards having the discussion. IMO, the changes discussed here aren't explicitly changing anything (no one seems to be proposing changes to WP:BOTPOL), just making the need for consensus more visible with some broad examples in the BRFA instructions and some still-to-be-determined changes to the BRFA form. Anomie⚔ 01:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, not really changing anything, but it's still important though to create an understanding of how things will work best. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say "where appropriate," or it might elsewhere, but on the bot template it says "seek consensus for the task in the appropriate fora." The parenthetical remark gets BAG members and bot operators past thinking that mainspace edits will be non-controversial. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the edit made by Anomie (well, I would, wouldn't I? :) ), and think it responds to many of the concerns made before. I suggest that this subject can now be dropped, provided we are all happy that, for now at least, the issue is resolved? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is still the question of what (if any) changes should be made to Bots/Requests for approval/InputInit. Anomie⚔ 13:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I would like it to include a request for a link to the community consensus discussion. As someone mentions above, bot owners with interwiki bots can state they're established usage or something, maintenance bots can link to the change of template, whatever. As an alternative BAG members can simply ask for this each time, but I prefer it in the requests form.

 * Yes, I think a commitment by BAG to making sure there is community consensus for the BOT is sufficient-it reduces BRFAs to technical matters, leaving consensus matters to the community, and bureaucrats can maintain their current level of responsibility in regards bot flagging. All BAG members have been notified of the change and appear to be on board, or at least there's no indication they're not on board, and as members they have a responsibility to the notifications.

 * The CobraBot issue is still messy due to lack of prior consensus as Mr. Z-Man points out, but having watched a community consensus discussion about the primary concern, adding a externally linked parameter, lead to a general consensus of the usefulness of the linking, there's not much else I'm interested in doing about that.

 * So, I think it's on to business, lke sorting out what type of community consensus the bot putting multiple templates on new articles needs to acquire. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Per BRD, have added a line to the default script in order to wake us up a little bit - feel free to RD my B Fritzpoll (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "If your task could be controversial" - every jot and tittle is controversial on WP! Rich Farmbrough, 09:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

Any way to get a BRFA moving faster?
Speaking of uncontroversial tasks, is there any way to get the process moving on RSElectionBot? I fulfilled the bot request within about 8 hours of when I was asked, but now it looks like the bot's going to just stagnate on BRFA and the election will be over before anything happens with it. rspεεr (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on it :). Sorry about the time issue. There's a very small active workforce here, so it does take us a while to respond, and it's even worse then normal at the moment. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Uncontentious trivial changes
There are a number of uncontentious, trivial changes (for example, changing 'Image': links to 'File:') for which no bot solely performing them is likely to be approved, even if they were all grouped together.

AWB applies those fixes as a matter of course when doing other work.

Would it be reasonable to have a "bot" that represents these trivial fixes, and approve each fix; this "bot" could be then coded by the various framework maintainers and it's approved tasks could be applied by any real bot in addition to their own approved tasks? Josh Parris 03:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Open_Wikipedia_bot_requests_for_approval
Is there any automated process for cleaning out Category:Open_Wikipedia_bot_requests_for_approval? Josh Parris 03:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. Manually for now. Tim1357 (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can code a *drumroll* bot to handle it. It won't be very difficult; I'll just make some adjustments to a category maintenance script I already have employed. @harej 03:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As the community, I assert that there is a consensus for a bot to do this. Please, won't somebody make a bot to rid us of mis-categorized Category:Open_Wikipedia_bot_requests_for_approval entries on an on-going basis, preferably by ensuring that open bots are on the BRFA page, forcing a BAG member to close them, and thus following procedure? Josh Parris 03:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, the bot won't actually close requests. It will only see if a given BRFA is closed, and if it's closed, it will proceed to remove the category. I already have the script done (I ripped it off from another script) and I will make it a part of my next BRFA. @harej 03:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Make sure bot gets Bots/Requests for approval/mississippiforbes, proposal got created and never added to BFRA. Josh Parris 04:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

AWB in bot mode
I'd like to make some bulk edits such as removing Gaelic Games in Ireland from pages that it shouldn't be listed on or adding GaelicGamesProject to pages in Category:Gaelic Athletic Association and it's branches which aren't tagged and as such am not requesting a new bot. Do I need to request approval here or can User:GnevinAWB be changed to allow automatic editing ?Gnevin (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Every task which is fully automated needs to go through a BRfA; it's the task which requires approval, not exactly the bot (although it is partly the bot to, since tasks aren't interchangeable between bots). So yes, GnevinAWB would have to have a BRfA before being allowed to do the tasks you describe (in fact, you'd have to create a new account with "bot" in the name, to be used only for automated editing). However, the second task you describe is a very common bot job, and as such there are a number of bots which are already approved to do this, and could do that task for you (see Category:WikiProject tagging bots). The first one would however, require approval through BRfA. Hope that helps :). - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that reply . Very helpful Gnevin (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:FritzpollBot
Hi. Since User:Fritzpoll has left, that leaves his bot inactive. I've offered to take over Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 4 for him, and am expecting the source code shortly. So I'd like an okay from a BAG member (other than me) to run this (previously approved) task with User:KingpinBot. And was also wondering if they'd be any other volunteers to take over FritzpollBot's other tasks? Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this will be fine; you're transferring approved source-code from one approved operator to another. Request: Approved.
 * On a related note, I see only one other operating bot: Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 3, an interwiki bot. At this time, I'm not interested in taking up that mantle. Josh Parris 13:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot account for AWB use
AWB has a limit of 25K when creating lists of articles to edit. In order for the list tool to create a longer list, one needs a bot account. Note that this is true even if the number of pages that will actually be changed is far less than 25K. In my case, I am trying to fix issues in articles that transclude Infobox single, o which there are more than 25K. The great majority of the articles won't be changed: filters in the settings of AWB will cause most articles to be skipped.

Another project that is directly related to this is an investigation of if/how to merge Infobox song into. To do that, I want to find articles that use certain template parameters and make sure that my proposal for a merged template won't break any articles, or I will find and fix such articles first, etc. Either way, I need to be able to search all the transclusions of, not just the first 25K.

So... how do I get a bot account for this use? The request process here seems oriented to standalone bots. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 * You can create tracking categories instead. Many projects use categories such as Category:Biography articles without living parameter to track the use of certain categories. This can be done by requesting changes in the banner's code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

When do I start developing?
During which step on the list should I have my bot readied? Should I have finished it before I even suggest it? I find the instructions here very confusing.   Awesomeness  talk  16:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your choice really. For my first bot I coded it all before proposing it (but maybe I got carried away with the excitement ). If you do code it first it means that you'll probably have to change some stuff, and also you risk wasting your time if it's not approved. It's best to have at least some idea of how the bot will work, or you waste our time if it turns out you can't create it. You can't do any testing before approval (Except in your own userspaces). Personally I find it's best to program at least some of the bot first, but you may think it's not worth it, as I said, it's a matter of choice. By the way, what language are you using? Ahh, Java. - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I know how my bot will work.  It's very simple, but has been requested many times.  See TidyBot for details.    Awesomeness   talk  17:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see. I'd suggest you put in a catch so it only edits that page if it hasn't been edited for x minutes (so that if the user who added it vandalised then the bot gives RCPers a chance to revert). Have you considered making it patrol the recent changes and revert edits which only add wiki markup instead? I think there was a Soxbot which used to do this or something, but haven't seen it for a while. Anyway, feel free to start up a BRfA any time :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I might do that. However, if I can't get the API to work for me, the bot probably won't happen at all...  =(  Look at the errors I'm having with the basic 'read a page' example that they had...  Do you know what's going on?  I've never encountered this before.    Awesomeness   talk  16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Intermittent automation of occasional manual tasks
I am an experienced admin who maintains and runs the OpenOffice.org Forums as well as a couple of wikis using the Wikimedia engine, but I am also involved in Wikipedia as a normal editor. I am currently doing a project with another editor to add a CFS sufferers category to Bios of CFS sufferers very much the same way that many people who are HIV positive or suffer from other widespread illness are tagged. (See my sandpit CFS people). If we come to the point where we decide to implement these category insertions, then I can see that they are four sensible possible approaches: (4) isn't one of the current standard bots, but the personal overheads of seeking approval for this just don't seem worth it. If this were one of my own wikis then I would just use (3). However, since I would be writing back to (main) name space articles, then I assume that the precautionary principle applies and I would therefore still need full approval. (1) is just tedious beyond words and such repetitive manual tasks are very prone to the risk of keying errors. So by my understanding I am left with (2) and as long as I include a per page visual check and the actual save is manual then this falls within Bot policy and therefore doesn't need the bureaucracy of formal approval. Am I correct in this? -- TerryE (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Use the list and manually repeat a block of [edit, select, cut select, past, select, cut select, past (to add the category and edit comment) then save the edit]
 * 2) Generate a temporary user page with a bunch of equivalent  links, fire up a new page for each, and use a small client-side greasemonkey script to automate this.
 * 3) Use a dozen line PHP / Perl / Python script (I am fluent in all) calling the relevant API wrapper to do the same.  In this case I am familiar with botclasses.php so I would probably use PHP.
 * 4) Write a standard bot which would take a page with one category on it and a list of pages and apply that category to those pages.
 * Actually, your task sounds perfect for AWB (depending on the number of edits), which is a program designed to aid users in doing repetitive tasks like this one, but with a manual check for each edit, so there would be no need to get bot approval (similar to your second option, but you'll probably find it easier to use). You have less than the 500 article edits suggested before approval to use AWB, but you seem competent, and have a good reason for approval. So either I can approve you, if you want that, or I can do the edits myself. Let me know either way. If it's a larger number of edits, then you may find it's worth getting bot approval, how many pages are you thinking of categorising? If it's just the ones listed at User:TerryE/CFS_people then I'd say use AWB. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately AWB is an MS/.Net 2.0 app. I have Ubuntu x64 on my laptop.  OK, I also have dual boot XP and an XP VM (I am a moderator on the VirtualBox Forums as well)  but I haven't started XP for over 3 months. (I gave up with WinXX because I found Vista such a dog compared to Ubuntu).  There is also the learning curve of using a sophisticated app when I already know javascript and DOM inside-out.  There's no rush.  I just didn't want to cross any lines unknowingly.  What I already do if I want to analyse content of pages and their history is to use the standard Export and Import functions to copy them onto a non-prod local wiki on my laptop or one of my servers and use scripts to hit the content there.  I might just write and test the scripts, document them on a sandbox page and then we can follow this up with some specific code / documentation before any live use.  Thanks again.  TerryE (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well, you're free to make semi-automated tools (where the program still needs a humans a-okay before editing). So you'll be with-in policy if you do that. However, my offer to do the categorisation with AWB still stands. It'd be quick and easy, and wouldn't require you to do any coding or such stuff. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am grateful for your offer and I might still take you up on it. I might also pull your source down from svn and have a look at how if might be moved into a full open stack.  It's all a balance of interest, other commitments and priorities.  I had to take early retirement a year ago as a result of illness and am now pretty effectively housebound, so what I do have in excess is time and experience :) -- TerryE (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Read-only bots
Greetings-- I'm hoping to put together a read-only bot that I can use to develop statistical sampling techniques of Wikipedia. Since the purpose of the bot is sampling, it shouldn't be a bandwidth hog in any way. In particular, not unlike some researchers, I'm hoping to compare site traffic with edit traffic in a statistical way. Would this kind of bot be approved? How can I develop the software before it is? Thanks, Owensmartin (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think read-only bots require approval. –xenotalk 23:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right-- I only tried a pywikipedia script and it was rebuffed for not being a registered bot, but I wouldn't be surprised if that script was asking for write access. Furthermore, I can put the queries straight into my browser, no issue-- surely I can do it from the terminal as well. Question: should I register a new bot account for these queries even if it doesn't require approval? Owensmartin (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to be editing, then there's no need for a separate bot account. Josh Parris 05:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're not editing you don't need a separate bot account or approval (although an account with a bot flag may be useful as it allows for higher api queries). Please make sure you use a descriptive user agent with a contact email address in it or domas may ban your IP address. -- Chris 08:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you get a bot flag? Put it up on the requests for approval list? Owensmartin (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but (if you're not querying for text) for the data you're after may be a better idea to acquire a toolserver account; there you have SQL access to the underlying database. Josh Parris 23:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, I applied for a toolserver account maybe 6-8 months ago and never got it. Is getting a toolserver account supposed to be easy? tedder (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends. Where did you apply, what did you say, and what was the response? At some point they migrated from a page at Meta to a system using JIRA tickets. A lot of requests simply got lost in the shuffle. Other possible issues could include a worry about German privacy laws, not enough of a track record on Wikimedia sites, not a clear enough description of what you intend to do with the account, etc. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Transfer SuggestBot from ForteTuba to Nettrom
I'd like to transfer ownership of User:SuggestBot from myself to User:Nettrom, who has both more time and energy to keep it going and make it better. I've updated the bot's page itself, I think. Let me know if there's anything else that needs doing. -- ForteTuba (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay for language change
Just wanted a quick go ahead from another BAG member to change KingpinBot's wikiproject tagging from using AWB to using C#. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. As long as the script does the same thing, it shouldn't be a problem – just make sure it works first! — The Earwig   (talk)  20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How does the approval system really work?
So I have followed the process documented for seeking approval for a bot. Now the question is, what do I actually have to do to get it reviewed and hopefully approved? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you just have to give us a little prod. I for one looked at your request a few days ago, but since I know nothing about AWB and cannot even run it I was hoping someone else would jump in. Anomie⚔ 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

New method - new bot?
If I want to achieve the same result by a slightly different method does this need a new bot and new approval or can it run on the existing bot user? To be more specific can User:People-photo-bot be run under the same bot as User:People-photo-bot? --Traveler100 (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a new bot account in most cases, although some prefer to run different tasks in separate bot accounts. As for approvals: In general, it depends on whether the slightly different method is really slightly different or not. In your specific case, I'd suggest requesting a new approval as your "slightly different method" is adding a slew of extra pages to be processed. In particular, I would be concerned about the usual semantic drift problems when categories are processed recursively. Anomie⚔ 03:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ganeshbot 4
This is about the bot Ganeshbot4. The discussion about whether the bot should be approved for the task of creating gastropod articles is about this bot creating 600 species Conus articles. The bot owner says the bot was approved for creating thousands (or more) of gastropod species articles from WoRMS. I do not see this in the approval discussion.

The bot is creating bad articles. WoRMS is not as careful about its taxonomic experts as it should be. This bot is creating articles about species that are listed from a single 18th century identification followed by an amature's out-of-print book, that has been verified by the WoRMS "taxonomist"--an amature shell collector.

I was surprised by some of the gastropod species listed next to a new article I created. I attempted to verify the species were correct, but could find no sources except for WoRMS, the out-of-print book, and, now Wikipedia.

What gives? Was this bot approved to add all of WoRMS to Wikipedia? I think Wikipedia might be creating species. JaRoad (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked some articles created by the bot. They have incorrectly or non-validated taxonomic names, subspecies listed as the wrong species, bad descriptions, and the taxoboxes are junky. I have not found one article created by this bot that is correct. JaRoad (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted information about this bot at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I think the bot should be stopped until editors can clean up its articles. I think its articles should be deleted if editors are not willing to individually fact-check every one. This is irresponsible article creation by Wikipedai. A google search turns up these articles at the top of short lists. Please be more considerate to Wikiepia readers when approving the creation of 1000s of species articles from databases. Maybe most of the articles will be okay. But I checked 6, and the 6 I checked were all bad. The bot operator does not have good answers to questions about where the approvals are, who is making sure the articles are correct, or anything. JaRoad (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific request for bot to be blocked and unapproved
I request this bot be blocked, its 15,000 articles individually checked and verified by gastropod editors or deleted if that is not possible, and that the bot's task for creating an unlimited number of species stubs be discussed formally on the requests for bot approval page rather than in a secondary discussion elsewhere.

In response to a post about another bot that created bad species articles (with disastrous results. I still have nightmares about Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles.) the bot operator said,

"This task is no way close to what AnyBot did. I had clearly mentioned that about 580 stubs will be created (nothing more). The list of articles that will be created are already listed in the data page (first column). The point of creating these articles is so that the Gastro team can come in and expand them. Regards, Ganeshk  ( talk ) 01:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)"

I added the bold marks to Ganeshk's text, they are not in the original.

The bot operator aske for this approval of "580 stubs ... (nothing more)" for a single species, Conus, then decided he did not need approval for other families, ":The bot approval was for the task, to create species using the WoRMS as reference. I don't see myself getting approval for each mollusk family. As for the 100 edit restriction, they were lifted at this discussion. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 04:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)"

Again, I added the bold.

Maybe the misunderstanding is strong enough that bots need to be explained better to this editor before he continues to run any bots on Wikiepda. In the meantime, this bot should be blocked and its approval for creating 15000 gastropod stubs should be revoked. JaRoad (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC) JaRoad (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I am the bot owner. I think this is a taxonomy level issue best discussed at the project talk page.

 * The user has not engaged in any discussion with the Gastropod project members so far.
 * The user has not explained what is wrong with the articles or has provided any links to articles that have an issue.

 * The bot runs after the project approves each family for a run. This does not require a new bot approval as the automation is exactly same as what was requested on the bot request page. Please see discussion on the project talk page where a project member responds to the User:JaRoad's concerns. I request the user once again to please engage in the discussion on the project talk page. Thanks. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 10:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely the bot was approved for conus, not whatever species the gastropod project approves? If the bot is to do the latter it should only be run after appropriate broader approval ftom BAG. Whether the code is identical is irrelevant to the need for approval. Thincat (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ganeshk, there's nothing at the link you gave that relates to lifting your restriction on edits. Could you find a diff please. Thanks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Elen, try this one - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kingpin. I note from the discussion "I don't really see the need for a limitation. I think the bot should be able to create the articles all at once, or at least over the course of a few days; waiting half a year to create 560 pages is a bit overkill", so it's clear that the limitation was lifted only in respect of the 560 articles.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, that discussion shouldn't have been taken as the bot being approved to create more than the specified ~600 pages. I think it was clear the discussion was about the rate limit, because otherwise the task would take too long. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also read the bot approval and can confirm that it only approves creating around 600 articles on conus.  There was a great deal of opposition, and concern that we should not be importing Wikispecies wholesale. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My reading confirms that the bot approval was for a very limited number of pages, and that very strong opposition to automated stub creation was expressed. This bot has created over 10,000 pages over a number of years, so its owner may have felt confident that no particular problem would ensue, but it is not satisfactory for strong concerns and limits at a BAG approval to apparently be ignored. Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the bot approval as a technical approval to run the under the project supervision. On hindsight, I should have alerted the BAG that I am planning to do this and get their advise. The bot has created 15,000 articles so far. The Gastropod project members have been adding additional information to these stubs and have not found any major issues with them. The project members provide me with a introduction sentence and approval to run a family. The bot then creates the species within that family. The full list of bot-created articles is at User:Ganeshbot/Animalia/History. I will wait to hear what the next steps are. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 12:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I feel that the next step is to get approval, if you want to keep creating these pages, Bots/Requests for approval/Ganeshbot 4 was a one-time run, for a small number of articles, this has now been completed (as I understand), so you can not make more edits using that BRfA as your approval for those edits. Also, I wouldn't, and I imagine the rest of BAG wouldn't, be approving a BRfA for more of these edits until you've also got approval from the community that they actually want this. It's not good enough (at this point) that the WikiProject supports you, I feel you need to make sure there is actually consensus that this task is wanted. - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There is certainly a section of the community that feels that endless stub articles that do no more than alert one to the existence of something are not of particular benefit to the encyclopaedia. I am particularly concerned that the bot clearly had authorisation for only 600, and a review was to be carried out before it was used again, but 15000 stub articles have been created, many of which will be for varieties of slug about which there is very little more information than in the WoRMs listing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) The contender writes here above "The bot is creating bad articles. WoRMS is not as careful about its taxonomic experts as it should be. This bot is creating articles about species that are listed from a single 18th century identification followed by an amature's out-of-print book, that has been verified by the WoRMS "taxonomist"--an amature shell collector." This information is wrong. So far, and as far as I know, none of the created articles has been wrong. The World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS), on which the bot relies, is maintained by the best experts in the field. If User:JaRoad, a user who just began at wikipedia a few days ago, wants to pretend otherwise, let him give better credentials than the experts and let him take it up with them at WoRMS. As to his other contention about an "amature", I have given an answer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods. The Ganeshbot has saved thousands and thousands hours of dull and repetitive work to the members of WikiProject Gastropods, time we have spent on writing articles on gastropods. The work we are facing is enormous (there are about 100,000 gastropods and a few hundred thousand synonyms !). Even with this bot, it will take us decennia to bring this project closer to its end. Without the bot, it is hopeless. JoJan (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss the quality of the information available to create the article, and JaRoad should really stop raising it here (take it to the slug's talkpage). This discussion is about whether the bot has permission to run. There is a discussion to be had as to whether Wikipedia needs articles on 100,000 gastropods, most of which have only two sentences of information, but that I think is for the wider community.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward?
The facts here seem clear: To move forward, I suggest the following: Opinions? Anomie⚔ 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ganeshk and WikiProject Gastropods misunderstood the bot approvals process, thinking that the approval for creating Conus stubs meant they could create more stubs without approval. I'm don't know why they thought this, but I don't see any point in dwelling on the issue unless someone thinks this mistake is likely to be made again and has suggestions on how to prevent it.
 * JaRoad's assertions that the stubs are inaccurate or of low quality are not supported by WikiProject Gastropods, and do not seem to be supported by any other editor. Absent any new evidence or opinion, I think we can consider that matter settled. If JaRoad wants to pursue this argument, he/she should pursue that at WT:WikiProject Gastropods.
 * At this point, blocking the bot would be punitive and there is nothing to be unapproved as the bot was working outside of its approval in the first place.
 * Ganeshk should request approval for creating gastropod stubs in general, following the existing process of having the WikiProject approve the batches of articles to be created as this seems to be working well. From a technical standpoint there should be no issues with approving the request, but we do need to ensure community consensus.
 * Some form of rate limiting should be implemented, to ensure that the bot doesn't create thousands of stubs that the project will not have the manpower to review in a timely manner. This will also increase your chances of getting community consensus. I can think of two methods offhand that might work:
 * The bot creates X stubs for some reasonable value of X, lists them somewhere or tags them in some manner (e.g. with a tracking category), then stops. As the project reviews each stub, it removes it from the list or untags it. The bot may then create another stub to bring the total back to X.
 * The bot creates the stubs as subpages of the WikiProject. As the project reviews each, it then moves these to article space.
 * The BRFA should be advertised to the appropriate places to allow all interested parties to weigh in.
 * I think the only issue with that is that the bot has already created "a lot" of stub articles (15,000 was mentioned, but I'm not sure if that's its entire output, or the output since it started operating unapproved) that haven't been reviewed. It seems most reasonable that it be stopped until those have been dealt with. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, and it should be a meaningful review, not just a quick look at a few samples, but a serious examination of content accuracy and suitability (how many articles? is it really useful to have that many?). Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The bot has been approved per Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group/Archive 7. How the bot work has been for example also in the Wikipedia Signpost: Wikipedia Signpost/2010-04-26/WikiProject report. The Bot has unified support by Wikiproject Gastropod members. Maybe Bot approval group would like to know in detail, how the bot work: 1) User:Ganesh will get clear instructions what to do by me or directly at Wikiproject Gastropod talkpage; 2) User:Ganesh will run the GaneshBot and it will do the task. That is all. I can personally guarantee that the bot runs OK. There is no need restrictions or restrains from "Bot Approvals Group" because nobody of the "Bot Approvals Group" is able to evaluate if informations generated by a bot are correct or not (see for example another overview what the bot have done User:Snek01/Taxonomy). By the way, it even seems that "Bot Approvals Group" is even unqualified to close BRFA correctly. So feel free to formalize bot's approval, but do not restrain useful work that is being done.

I will give you an example to compare: --Snek01 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tasmatica - an article created by human in 6 edits
 * Bulbus - an article created by bot.
 * The fact remains that the bot was approved to create the Conus articles only. The discussion with the rest of the community (i.e. besides you) may well have gone differently had the request been to create many thousands of stubs. That no one has noticed that the bot is operating outside its approval until now is irrelevant. At this point, if Ganeshk uses the bot to create any more Gastropod articles it may be blocked by any administrator per both the bot and blocking policies. The only reason the bot hasn't been blocked already is that Ganeshk has already stopped creating the articles until the situation is resolved. Anomie⚔ 01:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I have created Bots/Requests for approval/Ganeshbot 5. I think this discussion can move to the bot request page. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 01:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

BrokenAnchorBot no longer using AWB
User:BrokenAnchorBot uses AutoWikiBrowser to make it's edits. The code behind it just exports an AWB xml settings file with simple, case sensitive replacements and a list of articles that need to be edited. My bot uses the fact that AWB can automatically show the replacements that were made in the edit summary. Sometimes AWB creates summaries like this because  and a label  can end up being quite long, and edit summaries have a limit to how long they can be, breaking the link in the summary. I would like to improve these edit summaries by avoiding {or at least mitigating) such broken links. A smarter edit summary could omit the labels to make the text in the summary shorter, or do a few other things to be smarter about this. I'm not a windows guy, and learning C# doesn't appeal to me all that much, so I'm reluctant to take on the task of an AWB plugin myself. Should I submit a BRFA if I do decide to ditch AWB? I'll add any code to the repo before anything goes forward. Winston365 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for the late reply) As long as you exercise due care and be sure to properly test the new code, you shouldn't need a whole new BRFA if the task remains the same. – xeno talk 17:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
Would tagging articles en masse be wanted since I was considering learning programming to create a bot specifically designed to go through articles and tag them with the relevant issue needing addressing whether it be wikifying or a quick copyedit. If a bot like this would just be too hard or unwanted is my question. I was referred here by Arbitrarily0 a while ago but I never got to doing that (out of laziness).  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм |  Champagne?  06:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are possibly more editors watching WP:BOTREQ and that is usually for requests/ideas. I suggest you repost there. On the task — how would the bot actually determine what tag a page requires? Do you intent to preview the page first yourself? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another objection to cleanup-tagging bots in the past has been that flooding the already-overloaded cleanup categories with more articles isn't going to do a whole lot of good. Anomie⚔ 13:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I intend to review the articles first. Also the intention is tagging articles that need wikification, copy-editing. Cleanup is far too much trouble and should be individually identified since it's too much trouble.  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм |  Champagne?  09:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 7


text:
quadrate

Etymology 1
From, , from , past participle of , from , later , from.

Adjective

 * 1) Having four equal sides, the opposite sides parallel, and four right angles; square.
 * 2) Produced by multiplying a number by itself; square.
 * 3) * 1646-72, Sir Thomas Browne, Pseudodoxia Epidemica, book 4, ch. 12:
 * The number of Ten hath been as highly extolled, as containing even, odd, long, plain, quadrate and cubical numbers.
 * 1)  Square; even; balanced; equal; exact.
 * 2)  Squared; suited; correspondent.
 * 1)  Squared; suited; correspondent.
 * 1)  Squared; suited; correspondent.

Etymology 2
From, , from. ; compare also.

Noun

 * 1)  A plane surface with four equal sides and four right angles; a square; hence, figuratively, anything having the outline of a square.
 * 2)  An aspect of the heavenly bodies in which they are distant from each other 90°, or the quarter of a circle; quartile.
 * 3)  The quadrate bone.
 * 1)  The quadrate bone.
 * 1)  The quadrate bone.

Etymology 3
From, past participle of.

Verb

 * 1)  To adjust (a gun) on its carriage.
 * 2)  To train (a gun) for horizontal firing.
 * 3)  To square.
 * quadrating the circle
 * 1)  To square; to agree; to suit; to correspond (with).
 * not quadrating with American ideas of right, justice and reason

Etymology
From, from , from.

Adverb

 * 1) fourfold, four times

title: quadrate


text:
2007 IAAF World Athletics Tour

The 2007 IAAF World Athletics Tour was the second edition of the annual global circuit of one-day track and field competitions organized by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). The series featured 24 one-day meetings, consisting of the six meetings of the 2007 IAAF Golden League, five IAAF Super Grand Prix meetings, and thirteen IAAF Grand Prix meetings. In addition, there were 27 Area Permit Meetings that carried point-scoring events. The series culminated in the two-day 2007 IAAF World Athletics Final, held in Stuttgart, Germany from 22–23 September.

Four athletes achieved 100 points in the rankings in their event, all of them women: Sanya Richards (400 m), Maryam Yusuf Jamal (1500 m), Yelena Isinbayeva (pole vault) and Blanka Vlašić (high jump). The highest scoring male athlete was Asafa Powell in the 100 metres with 96 points – a total also reached by two athletes in the women's 100 metres hurdles (Susanna Kallur and Michelle Perry).

Points standings
Athletes earned points at meetings during the series. The following athletes were the top performers for their event prior to the World Athletics Final.

title: 2007 IAAF World Athletics Tour


text:
Introduction to Reading English/Nouns

A noun names :
 * persons, places, animals or things (man, canteen, flower)
 * concepts or ideas (peace, joy, democracy)
 * quality, property or condition (strength, blackness, apathy)

Classification of Nouns

 * Proper noun  is the distinctive name of anything. It always begins with a capital letter . Examples: Wikiversity, John Doe, America
 * Common noun  is the general name for anything. It always begins with a small letter . Examples: parent, cat, boy

Special Classes of Nouns

 * Concrete noun  names something that can be perceived with the five senses (sight, sound, touch, smell and taste). Examples: air, flower, food, water
 * Abstract noun  names something that can't be perceived with the five senses. Examples: love, truth, belief, sympathy
 * Collective noun  names a collection or a group of similar things. Examples: flock, herd, pack, etc.
 * Mass noun  a noun that is very rarely plural and is never with articles 'a' and 'an'. Examples: advice, equipment, fruit, information, weather
 * Compound noun  is made up of two or more words forming a unit idea. Examples: skyscraper, rubout, commander-in-chief

Properties of Nouns

 * 1) Person
 * 2) Number
 * 3) *Singular in number indicates one object only. Examples: bus, girl, boy, town, stone
 * 4) *Plural in number indicates two or more objects. Most noun form their plural by adding -s or -es Examples: bag-bags, tree-trees, glass-glasses, church-churches
 * 5) Gender determines the sex of a noun.
 * 6) *Masculine gender indicates the male sex. Examples: brother, gander, nephew, father, John
 * 7) *Feminine gender indicates the female sex. Examples: mother, sister, doe, Mary
 * 8) *Common gender indicates uncertainty of sex which is either male or female. Examples: teacher, parent, horse, cat, child
 * 9) *Neuter gender indicates that an object is without sex. Examples: rock, leaf, sea, montain, hill, paper
 * 10) Case shows the relation of a noun to other words in the sentence or phrase.
 * 11) *Nominative case  indicates that a noun is doing or being something in the sentence. A noun in the nominative case can be either a subject or predicate but not both in the sentence.
 * 12) *Objective case  indicates that a person or a thing is being acted upon. A noun in the objective case can be use as object of the verb or object of the preposition.
 * 13) *Possessive case indicates that a person or a thing owns something. The possessive form of a noun is usually formed by adding an apostrophe (') or an apostrophe s ('s)

Uses of Nouns

 * 1) Subject refers to the word about something is said in a sentence.
 * 2) Predicative nominative or predicate noun renames, identifies or explains the subject in a sentence. It is normally placed after a linking verb.
 * 3) Direct object refers to the receiver of the action in a sentence. It answers the question What? or Who?
 * 4) Indirect object tells to whom, to what, for whom or for what a thing is done.
 * 5) Object of the preposition answers the question What? or Whom? after the preposition.
 * 6) Appositive refers to a noun that identifies or provides further information about another word in the sentence.
 * 7) * Essential appositive makes the meaning of a sentence clear. It is usually not set off by a comma.
 * 8) * Non-essential appositive may be omitted in the sentence without changing the meaning of it.
 * 9) Objective complement adds to the meaning of or renames the direct object. It appears only with these verbs: appoint, call, consider, declare, elect, judge, label, make, name, select or think.
 * 10) Direct address is the name or word by which a person is addressed. It is set off by a comma.

title: Introduction to Reading English/Nouns


text:
User:Sterling/fcc

The concept of Model
Some Definitions

H.Stachowiak: der Begriff Modell ist durch drei Merkmale gekennzeichnet:

 * 1) Abbildung. Ein Modell ist immer ein Abbild von etwas, eine Repräsentation natürlicher oder künstlicher Originale, die selbst wieder Modelle sein können.
 * 2) Verkürzung. Ein Modell erfasst nicht alle Attribute des Originals, sondern nur diejenigen, die dem Modellschaffer bzw. Modellnutzer relevant erscheinen.
 * 3) Pragmatismus. Pragmatismus bedeutet soviel wie Orientierung am Nützlichen. Ein Modell ist einem Original nicht von sich aus zugeordnet. Die Zuordnung wird durch die Fragen Für wen?, Warum? und Wozu? relativiert. Ein Modell wird vom Modellschaffer bzw. Modellnutzer innerhalb einer bestimmten Zeitspanne und zu einem bestimmten Zweck für ein Original eingesetzt. Das Modell wird somit interpretiert.

K.D.Wüsteneck: Ein Modell ist ein System, das als Repräsentant eines komplizierten Originals auf Grund mit diesem gemeinsamer, für eine bestimmte Aufgabe wesentlicher Eigenschaften von einem dritten System benutzt, ausgewählt oder geschaffen wird, um letzterem die Erfassung oder Beherrschung des Originals zu ermöglichen oder zu erleichtern, beziehungsweise um es zu ersetzen.

Essence: Reduction of sth, dependent on a view.

Languages for Models
Reduction => Simplicity, but enough expressive power to express all information relevant for the view.

E.g. Logical ER-Model (Business view, no implementation), Use-Case-Model (customer view on functionality), State model (only states/behaviour of the system) ...

Hierarchy of expressive power: ...
 * 0 Propositional languages
 * 1 (Relational) first order languages
 * 2 Regular languages (Type-3)
 * 5 Recursive enumerable languages (Type-0)

2-5 is defined as the Chomsky Hierarchy. The cohesion from 1 to 2 is given by Fagin's Theorem.

Central Issue: Rightsizing expressive power of Language.

Idea of Hoare Logic
Theory of programming languages: Mapping language elements to logical expressions.

Example

The Conditional

if b then P else Q

can logically be expressed as

$$(b \land P) \lor (\lnot b \land Q)$$

Benefits
 * common understanding of different languages
 * well-gounded research and education on programming issues (e.g. software design)
 * mathematical analysis of programs (e.g. correctness proofs)

Lesson learned for Modelling

Map elements of modelling language to logical expressions. This enables common understanding of languages and is a basis for well-grounded research and education (what languages like UML strongly lacking in). But, the aim here is not (so much) to proof correctness, but to deal with expressive power.

Elementary Equivalence
Definition Elementary Equivalence of Structures

Let $$\mathfrak{A}$$ and $$\mathfrak{B}$$ be S-Structures. $$\mathfrak{A}$$ and $$\mathfrak{B}$$ are said to be Elementary Equivalent (short: $$\mathfrak{A} \equiv \mathfrak{B}$$) iff for all S-Sentences φ it is

 * $$\mathfrak{A}\vDash \varphi$$   iff    $$\mathfrak{B}\vDash \varphi$$.

Isomorphism
Definition Isomorphism on Structures and Isomorphic Structures

Let $$\mathfrak{A}$$ and $$\mathfrak{B}$$ be S-Structures. A mapping $$p: A \to B$$ is said to be an Isomorphism from $$\mathfrak{A}$$ to $$\mathfrak{B}$$ (short: p:$$\mathfrak{A}\cong \mathfrak{B}$$) iff all of the following conditions hold:
 * 1) p is a bijection from $$A$$ to $$B$$
 * 2) for n-ary $$R \in S$$ it is
 * $$R^\mathfrak{A} a_1, ..., a_n \iff R^\mathfrak{B} p(a_1), ..., p(a_n)$$
 * 1) for n-ary $$f \in S$$ it is
 * $$p( f^\mathfrak{A} (a_1, ..., a_n) ) = a \iff f^\mathfrak{B} (p(a_1), ..., p(a_n)) = p(a)$$
 * 1) for $$c \in S$$ it is
 * $$p(c^\mathfrak{A}) \iff c^\mathfrak{B}$$

with $$a_1, ..., a_n; a \in A$$.

$$\mathfrak{A}$$ and $$\mathfrak{B}$$ are said to be isomorphic (short: $$\mathfrak{A}\cong \mathfrak{B}$$) iff there exists an isomorphism from $$\mathfrak{A}$$ to $$\mathfrak{B}$$.

Lemma Elementary Equivalence in Isomorpic Structures

Let $$\mathfrak{A}$$ and $$\mathfrak{B}$$ be S-Structures. It is

 * if $$\mathfrak{A}\cong \mathfrak{B}$$ then $$\mathfrak{A}\equiv \mathfrak{B}$$.

The inverse is not the case, i.e. elementary equivalent S-Structures are not isomorphic in general.

Isomorphy in infinite Elementary Equivalent Structures
In order to show that elementary equivalence does not generally imply isomorphy, consider the Peano Arithmetic, as given by the following axioms:
 * 1) $$\forall x(Sx \neq 0).$$
 * 2) $$\forall x,y((Sx = Sy) \Rightarrow x=y).$$
 * 3) $$(\varphi[0] \wedge \forall x(\varphi[x]\Rightarrow\varphi[Sx])) \Rightarrow \forall x(\varphi[x]),$$ for any formula $$\varphi$$ in the language of PA.
 * 4) $$\forall x(x+0=x).$$
 * 5) $$\forall x,y(x+Sy = S(x+y)).$$
 * 6) $$\forall x(x \cdot 0=0).$$
 * 7) $$\forall x,y(x \cdot Sy = (x \cdot y) + x).$$

Now consider N(+, *) as model A. In order to construct an elementary equivalent but not isomorphic model simply add an element a that is not yet in N. To satisfy axiom 3 we also have to add successors and predecessors starting from a. For satisfying axioms 4 to 7 the results of addiotions and multiplications of the new elements have to be added as well. So, finally we have constructed a non-isomporphic model for A that obeys all the above axioms.

Notice that this can not be done with the peano axioms, since axiom 3 ist stricter there, i.e. it is about the set of all natural numbers not just of some, as the above is.

Formalising the above leads to the following theorem:

Skolem Theorem

 * There is a non-standard model of arithmetic,

where 'non-standard' means elementary equivalent but nor isomorphic.

But it gets even worse:

Theorem

 * For every infinite structure there is a elementary equivalent and non-isomorphic structure.

We omit any proof or explaination here. This leaves us with the case of finite structures, to find out how elementary equivalence and isomorphy relate there.

Isomorphy in finite Elementary Equivalent Structures
Theorem

For finite relational structures $$\mathfrak{A}$$ and $$\mathfrak{A}$$ it is
 * $$\mathfrak{A}\cong \mathfrak{B}$$ iff $$\mathfrak{A}\equiv \mathfrak{B}$$.

Proof

"=>" follows immediately from the general case.

"<=": First, we construct a sentence to describe every possible structure generically Alltogether (by conjunction) we get a up to isomorphism unique structure. To see this, compare to the definition of isomorphy: relations and constants are determined entirely and the bijectivity is insured by the fixed number of elements.
 * The number of elements of the universe can precisely be expressed by the following:
 * ..., says that there are at least n elements in the universe
 * ..., says that the universe contains at most n elements
 * Any relation in the language can be described by describing it element by element
 * $$R x_1, ..., x_n$$, in case ...
 * $$\neg R x_1, ..., x_n$$, in case ...
 * Constants can be mapped by
 * Not to forget the equivalence relation, we add
 * Not to forget the equivalence relation, we add

Idea of Finite Model Theory
Analysing the expressive power of first of formal languages (First Order or higher). For this purpose proof techniques have been developed (since the ones from Model Theory fail for the finite case). Most important one: Ehrenfeucht Games (that we don't explain here any further - just assume that it does 'something useful').

Theorems of MT in FMT

Consider the following sentence σ3

$$\exists_x \exists_y \exists_z (x\ne y \land y\ne z \land x\ne z)$$

that says that there are at least 3 different elements in a universe. One can expand σ3 easily for n other than 3. So, let Σ = {σ1, σ2, σ3, ...} be the infinite set of all these sentences. Now Σ is obviously not satisfiable by a finite model, although every finite subset of Σ is. Ok, but why does that matter? One of the most useful tools in general Model theory is the Compactness theorem, stating: "Let Σ be a set of FO sentences. If every finite subset of Σ is satisfiable, then Σ is satisfiable." But as just shown this doesn't hold for the finite case, thus there is no Compactness theorem in Finite Model Theory!

And (unfortunately) this is the case for many other important theorems as well (actually the very most of them) like e.g. Gödel's Completeness theorem. So Finite Model Theorists can not simply adopt the classic instruments from Model theory, they have to find their own. The basic ones are presented subsequently.

Main Corollary

Let P be a property of finite σ-structures. Then the following are equivalent

 * P is not expressible in FO
 * for every k $$\in \mathbb{N}$$ there exist two finite σ-structures $$\mathfrak{A}_k$$ and $$\mathfrak{B}_k$$, such that the following are both satisfied
 * $$\mathfrak{A}_k\equiv_k \mathfrak{B}_k$$
 * $$\mathfrak{A}_k$$ has P and $$\mathfrak{B}_k$$ does not have P

where $$\equiv_k$$ is the elementary equivalence to a certain 'extent' k. This part is then shown employing Ehrenfeucht Games.

Lesson learned for Modelling

Develop suitable expressibility-proof techniques, for languages simpler than FO.

title: User:Sterling/fcc


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Cryptocurrency task force/notability

Notability guidelines?
I have doubts over the current 3 main points:

 * New features: What do we consider to be a new feature? I think this may be controversial. Some might say "built in mixer / anonymity" is sufficient, I disagree, you might agree or disagree.. The intent is good, but I don't know how it will work out in practice.

 * Large User Base: I don't know if we can get much info about this, from reliable sources. We can't do our own research on the number of full nodes or merchants, that's WP:OR.

 * Valuable: I'm guessing market cap? What if a coin reaches a high market cap and then becomes near worthless? WP:NOTTEMPORARY,

Furthermore, coverage from reliable sources is essential, because we need enough reliable sources to be able to cover it. I think this biases coverage more to novelty coins (eg Titcoin) that isn't actually notable, but I'm not sure how that can be addressed.

Thoughts? ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Market cap is definitely not a measure. A currency can have 1bln coins total and if you exchange the single coin for $1 you will get $1bln cap. This is a nonsense. Value should be determined in other way Hannasnow (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Disputed
See Reliable sources/Noticeboard: please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


text:
Antonio Rangel

Antonio Rangel may refer to:

 * Antonio Rangel (badminton), Mexican badminton player
 * Antonio Rangel (footballer), Spanish footballer

title: Antonio Rangel


text:
Talk:Charles Apthorp

Untitled
The following information is interesting - and because of the detail should likely go into the notes section - but first, the references are all short citations. Is there more information: title of ad or article, page number, etc.:

"Among the goods imported and/or sold through Apthorp on Merchants Row in Boston were 'choice madera wines, ... a parcel of Russia duck and several sorts of European goods'; 'British duck of all sorts'; 'choice good sea coal, ... several second hand cables, little the worse for wear, and anchors suitable, with window glass of most sorts, and a parcel of lead and shot'; 'a good new still and worm of about 600 gallons'; salt; 'a parcel of guns, 4-pounders, with carriages and shott, also a parcel of swivel-guns with shott suitable;' a 'well fitted' 50-ton sloop'; and 'a brigantine about 90 tuns, and three years old, now lying at the Long Wharfe'."

 * References

Incomplete citation information makes it difficult to determine the WP:Verifiability of the sources. See also Template:Full citation, which applies to each citation here. Does anyone have 1) more complete citation information - or - 2) even better, a reliable, verifiable source with a good summary of the goods he transported?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 18:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Boston 18th c. newspapers available as a searchable database via NewsBank Inc.

The "still and worm" mentioned above are apparently related. I do not, however, know of a major use of a gear and worm in distillation. Is it possible that "worm" refers instead to what we now commonly call a "condenser". AJim (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Apthorpe house
I believe Harvard University has an historic house, Apthorp House, which is located in the center court of the Adams House residence. I was told it was built by East Apthorp, who is probably the same person as the father of Charles. Something about East and this house might make another article. AJim (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Charles Apthorp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706210841/http://www2.umoncton.ca/cfdocs/etudacad/1755/index.cfm?id=010605000&lang=en&style=G&admin=false&linking= to http://www2.umoncton.ca/cfdocs/etudacad/1755/index.cfm?id=010605000&lang=en&style=G&admin=false&linking=

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles Apthorp


text:
1987 in Thailand

The year 1987 was the 206th year of the Rattanakosin Kingdom of Thailand. It was the 42nd year in the reign of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX), and is reckoned as year 2530 in the Buddhist Era.

Incumbents

 * King: Bhumibol Adulyadej
 * Crown Prince: Vajiralongkorn
 * Prime Minister: Prem Tinsulanonda
 * Supreme Patriarch: Ariyavangsagatayana VII

title: 1987 in Thailand


text:
Eduard Stoyanov

Eduard Stoyanov (Russian: Эдуард Стоянов; born 29 June 1972) is a Ukrainian retired footballer.

title: Eduard Stoyanov


text:
Heidenberg Castle

Heidenberg Castle is a ruined castle in the municipality of Obersaxen Mundaun of the Canton of Graubünden in Switzerland.

History
Heidenberg Castle was the first of four castles built to defend and control the region around Obersaxen. The Obersaxen plateau first appears in historic records in 765 when Bishop Tello gave his farms and meadows there to Disentis Abbey. In 806 it became an Imperial Estate, which it remained until 956 when Emperor Otto I donated the village and the village church back to the Bishop of Chur. To control this important village along the Rhine river, four castles were built at various points throughout the Middle Ages. The first was Heidenberg above Tavanasa which may have been built as early as 1000. It was followed by Moregg and Saxenstein (around 1200) and Schwarzenstein (13th century). However, Heidenberg does not appear in any surviving medieval records. In 1468 the inheritance of the Counts of Rhäzüns the other three castles around Obersaxen were mentioned, but Heidenberg was omitted, probably indicating that it had already fallen into ruin. In 1556 the Obersaxen castles of Schwarzenburg, Saxenstein and Heydnischburg were fixed as the border between Obersaxen and Waltensburg. In 1573 the chronicle of Ulrich Campell calls the ruins Heidabergum.

Today only a few ruins of the tower and outer wall remain.

Castle site
The castle is located atop a small, rocky outcropping above the village of Tavanasa in the Surselva valley. The castle site is surrounded on three sides by steep cliffs and can only be reached from the fourth or mountain side. Though even on the mountain side, a smaller cliff partially blocks the way. Due to its isolated location and strong natural barriers, Heidenberg may have originally been built as a refuge castle before eventually becoming the home of minor knights. The top of the outcropping is about 100 x with castle ruins on the south-west side. The polygonal tower was built with walls that are 1.7 m thick. Portions of the castle walls are still visible along the south and west sides of the outcropping. There were probably other buildings inside the castle, but no traces remain.

title: Heidenberg Castle


text:
User:SusieCharles

Hi there, I am taking part in the Art + Feminism Wikipedia Editing Circle organized by QAGOMA. I am currently in the process of creating a page about the Indigenous Australian artist Yinarupa Nangala.

title: User:SusieCharles


text:
Providence College for Women

Providence College for Women, is a women's general degree college located at Coonoor, The Nilgiris District, Tamil Nadu. It was established in the year 1966. The college is affiliated with Bharathiar University. This college offers different courses in arts, commerce and science.

Science

 * Mathematics
 * Computer Science
 * Botany

Arts and Commerce

 * Tamil
 * English
 * History
 * Economics
 * Commerce

Accreditation
The college is recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC).

title: Providence College for Women


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/hotelplopsaland.be

Links

 * hotelplopsaland.be resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.

Additions

 * Displayed all 7 additions.


text:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philippe Patekk/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

Accounts were create no more than 10 minutes apart. Both are vandalizing the same article. IP is likely the true master. Lupin VII (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I have not run a check on the accounts, and everything I say is behavioural. The IP is the school. The accounts are vandalizing the school. The logical conclusion is that these are classmates goofing off in the school library, etc. I do not see grounds for running CheckUser or blocking. Warn them, and if they continue, report to AIV. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)