Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 8

src: static.timesofisrael.com

Video Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 8

EdoBot deletes interwikis to a non-existent page

Hi all. I have run EdoBot with the new option -cleanup from interwiki.py. This new option removes interwiki links to non-existent pages, and is a little more cautious than the -force option which also removes interwiki into different namespaces, and other things that human beings generally have to check. I do not think this will be a problem, because bots are approved for "creating and maintaining interwiki links" and removing links to pages that do not exist is part of maintenance. However, the bot has been running quite high (probably because the page has not been processed with new options by another bot - it was only added yesterday), so I thought I would stop the bot and check everybody no problem with it before proceeding. If not, then I will be happy to discuss it and, if necessary, go through re-approval. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable fix for the current task. --Ã, Ã, HELL KNOWZÃ, Ã,? TALK 16:46, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

The bot starts again because there is no objection in more than one day. - EdoDodo ^talk 05:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 8

Platform Bot

As some people know I am developing a bot platform and I want to see if the project gets wide support before continuing. d'oh! _talk 12:06, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

src: wololo.net

City Bot

Per WP: DUCK, this contribution by User: Starzynka looks like it was created using a bot (most likely AWB). The user talk page says that they are created manually and the user is authorized to create this stub. I do not see a link to any bot approval. Does the bot policy apply here? - Ganeshk (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the related ANI incident. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As per the bot policy: "high-speed semi-automated processes can be considered effective in some cases, even if performed by the account used by the human editor" and "The community has determined that any large-scale automated or semi-automated automation task must be approved on Wikipedia: Bots/Request for approval Although no specific definition of" large scale "is decided, the" more than 25 or 50 "is not opposed." I suggest this task still gets approval, or at least discussed with the relevant WikiProject, although it is not fully automated. - EdoDodo ^talk 15:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree this must go through BRFA. It is clear that this is semi-automatic, and sub-use: PAGENAME to fill "official name" and the name in the lead is not appropriate for those who are (disambiguation) (for example). Despite the dubious editorial statements that they are "completely manual", cutting and pasting the boilerplate template is still "semi-automatic" as far as I'm concerned. - xeno ^talk 15:43, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

------------------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------- - ------------- Thank you for your response. I have asked users to stop creating articles and get approval. I think this issue should be brought back to ANI if the user disagrees. User: ????????? ????? has created similar stubs. They get the impression that this does not need approval. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:09, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

do you really want to state that the usage of the template is "semi-automatic", which may be dragging on every prod and tag. is there a decision that approval is required? Accotink2 talk 16:15, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

If by "in power" you mean "discussion shows the consensus of society" then yes, this is discussed and agreed here. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion discusses making a semi-automatic or automatic "stub". Although there is confusion about the precise meaning of semi-automation, it is clear that the majority of editors speak of bots or editing scripts. There has been no discussion of whether article creation by copying a manual template (which, assuming good faith, what User does: Starzynka) is equivalent to semi-automation. Maybe it's time to have it? --Ã, Ã, HELL KNOWZÃ, Ã,? TALK 16:37, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I noticed there was no discussion about "semi-automatic", I took it from Wikipedia: Bot Policy Definition: " Bot (short for" robots ") is generally an automated program or script edits without the need for human decision making.

Helped edits include special low-speed tools and scripts that can help users make decisions but leave actual decisions to users (see the Helpful editing guide below). Any program or tool that does not allow users to view any edits and give instructions to make those edits (i.e., which can be edited without the operator viewing and approving changes) is considered a bot.

Scripts are personalized scripts (usually, but not exclusively, written in JavaScript) that can automate the process, or may just upgrade and improve existing MediaWiki interfaces. "

no assisted edits, or scripts here, but cut and paste Manual help: Words of magic. Accotink2 talk 16:39, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

"high-speed semi-automated processes can be regarded as bots in some cases, even if done by the account used by the human editor " Cut-and-paste the boilerplate template is semi-automated as far as I'm concerned - especially when you do not even fix the official name to remove the disambiguator that is not part of the official name. - xeno ^talk 16:55, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This proposal is ridiculous. These articles are created manually. Templates that only show the title of the article are not specifically "automatic". The articles themselves are manually controlled. People should be free to create famous articles and do not need to ask questions. Stupid. Starzynka (talk) 17:31, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

It's close enough for automatic because it does not create an opportunity because you do not even have to bother fixing a clear manual style error. - xeno ^talk 17:33, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Edits are almost entirely made in less than 10 seconds. The bot policy says that "a high-speed semi-automatic process can effectively be considered a bot in some cases" ' and this is definitely one of them. 10 seconds is a very short time, and even if the template is being copied-still, I think, it's not enough time to do all the right web pages open and check for manual editing. Also, if this is really done manually, an error like this (brackets in the main sentence) will not happen (manual editing implies checking all content, so the fact that it's pasting a magic word is not an excuse). - EdoDodo ^talk 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your comment above; I'm afraid I do not agree. Wikipedia: Bot_policy # User_scripts "Most user scripts are meant to only enhance, enhance, or personalize an existing MediaWiki interface, or to simplify access to commonly used functions for editors." Scripts of this kind do not normally require BAG approval. " Accotink2 talk 16:58, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how bulk of article creation is under "enhancing, upgrading, or personalizing an existing MediaWiki interface, or simplifying access to commonly used functions" . I believe that in this context the commonly used functions are intended to alert/welcome users, protect pages, and other basic tasks. Certainly not page creation. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Prop 1 faced it a good idea. However, there may be some edits that require very low supervision so calling it monitoring may be considered lithotic. I think for an example of the monthly maintenance category, where the manual approach opens all red links, then "ctrl tab, slide alt S" until your finger falls out. It's still useful to go back at the end and make sure the red links are blue, but that's it. Rich Farmbrough , 19:31, October 24, 2010 (UTC).

Prop 2 um.. what does "wiki" mean anymore? Rich Farmbrough , 19:34, October 24, 2010 (UTC).

RF, discussions about policy changes have been moved here. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:43, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Ganeshbot 5

Hello BAG team, this bot request has been open for more than a month now. The last BAG edition is on 8/30. Can someone from the BAG team please look at the consensus and give the result? Here is a discussion summary from the project team of Gastropod. thanks. - Ganeshk (talk) 21:42, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Doing... - Kingpin ¹³ (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ã, Finished - Kingpin ¹³ (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Kingpin. It was a long discussion, thank you for taking the time to do it. - Ganeshk (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to dispute the closure of Kingpin13:

• How many people joined in the discussion:
  • Support is provided by 15 wikipedians (14 wikipedians and User: Ganeshk).
  • Partial support (only for generic articles) by one wikipedian.
  • Objected is 4 wikipedians.
• The sentence of this closing is false: "because of its proponents who are proposing this, they must work with the community, to reach a suitable proposal for everyone (enough)." Why is this wrong: Opposing wikipedians does not provide any reasonable proof, that something is wrong with this bot. Their opposition is based on their personal feelings alone and not on wikipedia policy. All wikipedians who edit gastropod related articles support this bot and no one is opposed to wikipedians editing gastropod related articles. There is a community editor that deals with gastropods and there are only 4 wikipedians who do not edit such articles and who disagree with these bots for no reason whatsoever. So who needs to work together?
• There is no logical or logical reason not mentioned in the concluding remarks or throughout the discussion.
• Kingpin13 advises to "form consensus before filing another BRfA". But there is a consensus about the task of this bot in Wikiproject Gastropoda for more than 6 months and before. And only one critic comes after that time who started this Request. The only ISSUE is Request Agreement and Bot Approval Group , which can not work quickly. THERE A GENERAL CONSENSUS, WHICH MAKES WATERPROOF WATER PROTECTION PROTECTION WikiProject Gastropoda (talks with Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Gastropoda # Ganeshbot 5 and all the talks from WikiProject). Get it done as soon as possible, please, before it will appear on the Arbitration Committee and especially before the gastropod-related editor disappears from Wikipedia. --Snek01 (talk) 19:29, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hi Snek01, thanks for your points.

The number of opposing/supporting Wikipedians is not as relevant as you might think. BRfA is evaluated based on the strength of the argument presented, rather than the number of users who feel that the bot should be run or not.

My comment that you need to work with the community is not wrong. It is true that when proposing something new, the proposers must work in cooperation, to reach consensus. Denying that any opposition to a bot, or calling the "unreasonable" or "personal feel" opposition is the attitude that leads to a lack of consensus. I spent about a week on this decision (and also loosely followed the development of this bot since it was proposed verbally), and spent hours reading comments about this bot. I can safely say that there is reasonable evidence provided for the reason the user considers this bot's approval to be rejected. Simply claiming nothing, as you do, can be annoying per WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Since you do not listen to concerns, or handle them, you are not cooperating, so you can not compromise, so the request is closed because there is no consensus.

The Wikipedians working on WikiProject Gastropoda are expected to support this bot, as a large number of them seem to have the goal of creating pages on each snail (or the like). Because project members are users who agree with this purpose, using their broad support as "consensus" is not true, as this is a biased sample. You also seem to have the wrong idea that the only users who argue are important are those who are interested in writing content about the snails and snails.

I fail to see how the slow nature of BAG has anything to do with this. Threatening to take this to ArbCom is not constructive (though you are of course free to do so). Never have I (or a member of the Bot Approval Group) attempt to stop a member of this project from editing Wikipedia. BRFA is a necessary process, and similar to other consensus-building processes/assessments on Wikipedia. It complies with Wikipedia standards, and operates through consensus like most of Wikipedia. If you have a problem with this (the way in which Wikipedia is run) then I'm glad I rate BRfA as I do, because it seems you can not work cooperatively. - Kingpin ¹³ (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

src: cdn1.i-scmp.com

Request bot flag

Hai,

I'm not sure the process involved in the flag bot request for a recently approved User: Taxobot (WP: Bots/Requests for approval/Taxobot 2). I'll be grateful if someone can help me.

thank you

MartinÃ, (Smith609Ã,-Talk) 05:29, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, in view of previous issues with Anybot, it would be better to handle issues raised a few hours ago at User talk: Taxobot. I have not seen the benefits of this problem, but it needs a response. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

src: static.timesofisrael.com

It may be misapproved for a form of spell checking (SmackBot)

Wikipedia: Bot/Request approval/SmackBot Task XI

In 2006, SmackBotÃ, (talkÃ, Ã, Â · contribs) was approved for (among other things) "The correct stamp in the header" but this appears to be a form of spelling or spelling contrary to WP: BOTPOL # Spell check. In particular, this has caused problems such as "== Prime Minister ==" [1] and "== World Series of Poker ==" [2]. Should the approval for this line item from a connected BRFA be revoked? (or limited to a well-defined set such as == External Links == -> == External links ==, == See Also == -> == See also ==, etc.?) - ^talk 14:35, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this is a form of spell checking, Xeno, but apply a general rule to the header. The problem is, it's too error-prone (see example you provided). Let me suggest the last solution, allow to do a 'standard' header (more likely, but this is obvious). --The Beetstra Bean ^{T C} 14:43, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

That will be fine, but any rules that use Rich are now unsuitable for unsupervised editing. - xeno ^talk 14:49, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

The list of exceptions may be too tedious to compile. So another option to make a list of commonly accepted corrections is preferred. I am not against this small change, for almost never controversial. --Ã, Ã, HELL KNOWZÃ, Ã,? TALK 16:49, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a human error than a poorly programmed regex, so I will mark this resolved. - xeno ^talk 18:25, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Waiting period

Is it normal to wait for weeks between the approval periods? There may be a need to expand the TAS. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Know that my PHP code is crying itself to sleep because it believes it has no purpose. He just wanted to do the action he made. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:51, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

src: cognitiveseo.com

Review

The rhetorical question was not addressed to the bot operator closing the case without reply from WP: BAG. Sincerely, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to continue with the request, please do not hesitate to reopen it. I waited 6 days for an answer before closing it, after your comment that seemed to say that you did not intend to continue. Anomie? 05:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

src: courseware.hbs.edu

Taxobot 5

Wikipedia: BRFA # Taxobot_5 is a relatively simple task but has been waiting for approval for almost a month. It maintains template development so it would be better if I could run it over the weekend. Can team members evaluate it? Thanks, Martinà ¢ (Smith609Ã,-Talk) 18:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Super, thanks! MartinÃ, (Smith609Ã,-Talk) 19:05, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

The trial is over so if anyone gets a chance to give it a nod, that's fine. Thanks (-: MartinÃ, (Smith609Ã, -Ã, Talk) 21:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Need a BRFA app for functionality change?

In the near future I will be working on some changes on how SuggestBot handles its regular users, and is wondering if it's necessary to file a BRFA or not. Currently users can get regular suggestions by registering on the list, then we process the list about once a month and send suggestions to their user's talk page.

On Wikipedia Wikipedia we have a Greek system in place that uses template inclusions to register, and that allows inclusion in subpages in userspace so that those who prefer can get suggestions posted there (eg "/Miscellaneous/Suggestions"). We will also run bots automatically there, greatly reducing maintenance costs and ensuring users actually get these recommendations regularly.

Does this kind of change require me to file a BRFA for an additional assignment to SuggestBot? Also, let me know if anything is missing. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 13:33, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Since the actual task is almost identical and only the registration method has changed, I do not think it would be a problem.Ã, - EdoDodo < sup> talk 16:17, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Please agree that changes to non-main space for your assignment can be done without a new BRFA. --Ã, Ã, HELL KNOWZÃ, Ã,? TALK 17:11, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I'm glad to hear that new apps are not required. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 19:38, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned BRFA

So there's Wikipedia: Bots/Approval/YouMeBot just sit and not linked from anywhere and I'm not sure if it's a serious request or not. It's created by the bot account itself that has been blocked-indefend for its username and no owner of the bot has been identified. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:13, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Easy to fix. Anomie? 02:49, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comments stupid by community members

It's clear from my post that I do not really know what's going on with bots, but I think I'll try to comment and learn. Big mistake. I have been placed in my place. [3]

I hope part of the process is that community members can learn about it. There is no reason for this. --Kopopatra (talk) 18:28, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

I do not see anything there that "puts you in your place"; worst tone H3llkn0wz might be read as a bit defensive. It seems to me that H3llkn0wz only explains where you are mistaken and provides some more details as to why it thinks more input should be searched. What exactly are you offended in the H3llkn0wz message? Anomie? 19:24, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, defend myself and ignore my request for links, but push the same policy to me, again, without a link. I am a bit overwhelmed lately because of the many policies cited on a defensive basis with no real policy links. When I finally found the policy, it is usually not what is quoted. However, links, sometimes, will be fun; for the policy administrator, I consider necessary. However, those who know on wikipedia seem to often behave defensively when links to policies are requested.

I'm not interested at this point, and I'm going to open this page. Apparently it's also a nasty resident to change someone's mind about posting comments, so I'm stuck leaving this without pulling it.

WP: BRFA did not get much comment on the bot to start. I think being defensive and ignoring inputs or questions is not a good way to get comments. --Kopopatra (talk) 19:42, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

WP: BOTPOL is the policy, especially the "To enable the bot to be approved, the operator must indicate that: [...] performs only existing tasks of consensus" and "the request will be open for some time during the community or group members Bot approval may comment or ask questions The decision to approve the request should take into account the above requirements, relevant policies and guidelines, and discussion of the request. "Anomie? 20:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OMG. The question is about this, "It does not actually change the output by default against the use of bots..." Now, I open this page. Please do not answer my question again, because it is useless. When someone asks a question and the response is a non-defensive answer, there is usually a reason. That is, the answer is already defensive. It may be easier and less persistent to provide links when first asked. thanks. --Kopopatra (talk) 21:45, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Bulk changes that do not affect page content and have no compelling reason, if not usually not. This is a waste of resources, and messes up the watchlist. The bot policy mentions cosmetic changes, that's along the same lines. Gigs (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Central List of Small Fixes

Hey BotOps, I was wondering if anyone knows the place where there is a complete list of cosmetic changes to do for an article. The types of changes that do not fit their own bot duties, but must be done if editing is being done anyway. I know WP: AWB has an impressive public library repair, is there a listed place? 1357 ^{" new romance size = size = "Arial"> Tim talk} 16:02, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean WP: GENFIXES? - Magioladitis (talk) 16:13, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

There are some bots that deal with longer list of general fixes, like piping and such, AWB does not have a full repository. I would like to list such non-controversial improvements; including if they need human supervision or not. Maybe on the project page. There is also Wikipedia: WikiProject Check Wikipedia and the smaller ones, such as Wikipedia: WikiProject Fix common errors. I'm sure there's more. I'm wondering if a list can be made and then approved by BAG as a list of changes that do not require approval or discussion. --Ã, Ã, HELL KNOWZÃ, Ã,? TALK 16:33, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

I am writing User: Magioladitis/AWB and CHECKWIKI. - Magioladitis (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OgreBot - & gt; need permission for the task?

OgreBot is currently approved to remove images that have been OK by the approved admin and users and set them up for batch removal. As part of the process, I want the bot to move the conversation page associated with the file to a new name; e.g., [4] (note that the file talk page for commons content can not be removed as G8). This is something I'm working on with my hands. Is this something I need to get approval, or is it suitable for the current task? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:09, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

I do not think this matches the current task directly, because it is a completely different action. If you fill the BRFA, it can be completed fairly quickly. --Ã, Ã, HELL KNOWZÃ, Ã,? TALK 10:41, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Can you turn off Snotbot?

<- I think the most important question is: does a new page patrol give this tag a priority when they are on patrol? ie make sure they have all been removed before moving to the regular special: Patrol Newpages? - xeno ^talk 14:49, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

The new bot runs for a few days, I'm sure most new page patrols do not even realize what it does. I've added this short mention in WP: NPP, but most new page patrols do not read that page often. Finally, people will probably start paying attention and trying to clean up these articles. Snotty Wong ^soliloquize 16:44, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Although no one actually answers any of my 2 points, (and this bot sets a new bad precedent on both,) I really appreciate what people do to respond and try to explain the various things, and also apologize if my tone anywhere is not polite. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:50, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

What do I misunderstand? Request and approval is to place hidden categories, [5] Bots also put boilerplate at the top of the article, eg. [6] leading to [7]. Satan says that consensus is changing [8] but is it discussed as part of the agreement? Please clarify. Thincat (talk) 15:55, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

As FYI, this is not the first approved bot to place the tag at the top of the article. If you do not think that the wider community (ie outside of those who commented on WT: NPP) will approve of this task, I suggest you start the discussion in some key places (WP: VPP, maybe) and see if people share your trepidation. - xeno ^talk 16:06, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Well, there seem to be two problems: (1) will/does the public agree on this and (2) does the bot's approval be given to mark this article? For me the last question is the faster one. By the way, when I look for an example of a transclusion tag (not an action bot) the first example I found has been hanging around for more than six months (Mack McCarter) so hope for timely action is probably virtuous. Thincat (talk) 16:20, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

(2) It seems that operators take themselves to change functionality during a trial without explicit (suboptimal) approval but they note changes in functionality before final approval. Related to (1), if proven during a discussion in the main place that the community does not want the tags visible to be placed by the bot, then the bot can start entering hidden categories, listing pages that need review, or something of the sort. - xeno ^talk 16:23, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding in all rounds. Up to 300 pages per day escaped from unpatrolled, untagged, (including attacks, spam, hoaxes, and non-English pages, etc.) into Wikipedia, a suggestion was made in October on VP to extend the 30 day backlog period. The request was rejected on the grounds that although technically possible, volunteer volunteer new pages should only work harder; some Wikipedians (well, I really do) feel there is another way to solve this problem. The project is still in its early stages but although what has been achieved so far is a small step to improve the new page patrol system, it is already a great leap toward better quality control. First and foremost, at this stage, no new page patrol should work on pages marked by Snotbot, and they may not be coming for a while. To explain clearly:

1. The New page is tagged as new on creation (but only those created by the wizzard get ugly banners) and get 'mark this page as a patrol' on that button.
2. They enter a page called Special: a New Page where they are highlighted in yellow until the 'tick this page as a patrol' button is pressed, or an edit is made that accidentally marks the page as dutiful
3. Special: The New Pages stay alive for 30 days, after which all new unassigned pages can sneak into Wikipedia via the back door.
4. These pages are not supervised because they are in poor condition, many patrollers have no experience to know what to do with them. They often do not have all the identification marks like cats, tags, stubs, frameworks of the talk page, etc.
5. These pages are too much to manually navigate by experienced editors and admins who sometimes have a stab at the bottom of the 'unpatrolled' list.
6. Finally, with Snotbot, we now have a way to keep this page tracked, and tracked.
7. What happens to them next is a guess of anyone, but we also work on it.
8. No one cares if they now have ugly templates on those placed by Snotbot - the creator, all SPAs, have long since moved from Wikipedia to leave us to clean up their mess, and the content of the page is much worse than any banners may be on top of therm.

The consensus does not change, the use of the word consensus is inadvertently used by Snottywong instead of saying 'method', but in praturak something has changed from the original project. That is a change to a technical problem, such as instead of switching from A to B through Y, now we switch from A to B via Z. This bot does nothing to your article , and it is impossible to set a precedent new bad. However, as I am writing this, another 10 pages have joined the list, adding a total of up to 100,000 pages by the end of the year that most of us do not know now are in urgent need of attention, and where they are. --Kudpung (talk) 17:04, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

So, the patrol process is broken (big warranty) and this does not help. My note/suggestion is to reduce the scope of the patrol review to the serious problems that apply to new articles. (notability, advertising, etc.) Reviewing for other things is very tiring and premature. North8000 (talk) 18:40, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, so what you say is if we ignore the problem, maybe it will be lost? Our readers appreciate warnings about potential issues in an article, and I dare say curious if an article has been reviewed by colleagues (because editors who originally came with content are unlikely to check OR, NPOV, etc. And of course more it is difficult to review the work themselves), and those editors interested in reviewing the work need some way to find articles that need review, or their desires and talents are in vain.. - Kingpin ¹³ (talk) 19 : 13, January 22, 2011 (UTC))

No, I'm giving suggestions for fixing vs. problems. just decorate it. :-) Yours sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it's impossible for bots to fix the problem, but it can direct other efforts to places where there is a possibility of a problem to prevent editors wasting effort looking for trouble instead of fixing it.. I fail to see the problem with that. - Kingpin ¹³ (talk) 19:18, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

I only respond to your semi sarcasm, (I mean not stupid) do not argue any further. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do not you read what I'm really saying instead of imagining the nonsense above? What happens in the article itself is too small to worry about. I raised two problems:

• (IMHO) robots may not place top level tags in articles
• robot tag is "give command" implies no policy. It implies that the lead author of the article can not remove the top level tag placed by the robot

If you want to continue avoiding those questions, it's no big deal. I was ready to leave this thread for a long time. But the discovery of the wrong things about me is a personal attack. Please stop that. North8000 (talk) 14:39, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Respond to two of your issues above:

1. Your opinion is duly noted. There is no precedent to prevent bots from placing top level tags.
2. The same "command" is given by the Article Wizard on all pages created by that process. We do not create templates that provide "orders", it has been used for other purposes for over a year. And I disagree that it "commands" you to do anything. It is strongly recommended that the article creator not remove the tag (for obvious reasons, as the article creator is not an unbiased reviewer), but that does not prevent your creator from doing something, or threatens the creator with penalty if they remove the tag. Therefore, I think your criticism is unfounded.

Anything else? Snotty <<> babble 15:27, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, who finally discussed what I said at first. And, as an aside, I have never had any complaints about your handling, unless/until you recently wrote "rooted in ownership of the article" and Kudpunbg repeats it. This is doubly misplaced. But let's move on. Thanks to everyone who tries to make Wikipedia better, even when I disagree with some special things. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:37, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Query

Source of the article : Wikipedia