Every now and again my bot gets blocked because it doesn't have a bot bit. Please stop that! If you want my bot to have a bot bit, then GIVE IT ONE!!!! If you need information first, you can ask me and I'd be happy to help you. But a bot bit is there FOR YOU, not for me. If you want it, you ask for it. Why force me to ask you for something that you want? If you want it, then ask for it. It's as simple as that.
On 28/10/2007, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
Every now and again my bot gets blocked because it doesn't have a bot bit. Please stop that! If you want my bot to have a bot bit, then GIVE IT ONE!!!! If you need information first, you can ask me and I'd be happy to help you. But a bot bit is there FOR YOU, not for me. If you want it, you ask for it. Why force me to ask you for something that you want? If you want it, then ask for it. It's as simple as that.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
What is your bot?
2007/10/28, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com:
What is your bot?
[[User:Robbot]]
On 28/10/2007, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/10/28, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com:
What is your bot?
[[User:Robbot]]
That account has never been blocked. Are you sure it's not the IP address that is getting blocked?
2007/10/28, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 28/10/2007, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/10/28, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com:
What is your bot?
[[User:Robbot]]
That account has never been blocked. Are you sure it's not the IP address that is getting blocked?
It has been blocked, and in fact at os: it is currently blocked.
On 28/10/2007, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/10/28, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 28/10/2007, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/10/28, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com:
What is your bot?
[[User:Robbot]]
That account has never been blocked. Are you sure it's not the IP address that is getting blocked?
It has been blocked, and in fact at os: it is currently blocked.
Never been blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
And made an edit 20 mins ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Robbot
...this is Wikipedia-l, *not* WikiEN-l.
On 10/28/07, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/10/2007, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/10/28, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 28/10/2007, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/10/28, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com:
What is your bot?
[[User:Robbot]]
That account has never been blocked. Are you sure it's not the IP address that is getting blocked?
It has been blocked, and in fact at os: it is currently blocked.
Never been blocked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
And made an edit 20 mins ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Robbot _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 28/10/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
...this is Wikipedia-l, *not* WikiEN-l.
Yes, but since enwiki is the largest Wikipedia, it makes sense to assume people are talking about it unless told otherwise.
On 29/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/10/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
...this is Wikipedia-l, *not* WikiEN-l.
Yes, but since enwiki is the largest Wikipedia, it makes sense to assume people are talking about it unless told otherwise.
PS Especially if they are writing in English.
Hoi, English is used as a "lingua franca". A lingua franca is a language that functions as a language that is understood by most. Again, do not assume on this list that the en.wikipedia is the default. This is only true on the mailing list for the English language Wikipedia Thanks, GerardM
On 10/29/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/10/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
...this is Wikipedia-l, *not* WikiEN-l.
Yes, but since enwiki is the largest Wikipedia, it makes sense to assume people are talking about it unless told otherwise.
PS Especially if they are writing in English.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 29/10/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, English is used as a "lingua franca". A lingua franca is a language that functions as a language that is understood by most. Again, do not assume on this list that the en.wikipedia is the default. This is only true on the mailing list for the English language Wikipedia Thanks, GerardM
Plenty of people discuss the English Wikipedia on the generic mailing list. Most people using other language projects specify which one they are talking about. It's generally only people talking about the English Wikipedia that forget to specify, thus it is a good assumption.
Hoi, It is sad that these people forget that this mailing list is about ALL wikipedias. It is sad that you are of this opinion. Thanks, GerardM
On 10/29/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/10/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, English is used as a "lingua franca". A lingua franca is a language that functions as a language that is understood by most. Again, do not assume
on
this list that the en.wikipedia is the default. This is only true on the mailing list for the English language Wikipedia Thanks, GerardM
Plenty of people discuss the English Wikipedia on the generic mailing list. Most people using other language projects specify which one they are talking about. It's generally only people talking about the English Wikipedia that forget to specify, thus it is a good assumption.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 29/10/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is sad that these people forget that this mailing list is about ALL wikipedias. It is sad that you are of this opinion. Thanks, GerardM
I agree with the first sentence. I don't know what you mean by the second. It's not a matter of opinion, it's simple logic. When most people mean something a particular way, it is generally helpful to assume everyone does (the alternative is always asking for clarification, which takes longer. If you assume, you'll generally be right and can answer straight away, and when you're wrong people usually clarify anyway, so it makes no difference). You'll note that I was the one that thought to clarify when things weren't making sense.
Let's not get off topic with this... perhaps bring it up in another thread, but this is supposed to be about Andre's bot...
On 29/10/2007, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
Let's not get off topic with this... perhaps bring it up in another thread, but this is supposed to be about Andre's bot...
I've far as I'm concerned, that topic has been addressed. I don't think there's really anything more to say about it. Might as well use this thread for something else now...
Hoi. It makes sense that you can assume on the mailing list for the English language Wikipedia. It does not make sense AT ALL on this list. Thanks, Gerard
On 10/29/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/10/2007, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
...this is Wikipedia-l, *not* WikiEN-l.
Yes, but since enwiki is the largest Wikipedia, it makes sense to assume people are talking about it unless told otherwise.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
It has been blocked, and in fact at os: it is currently blocked.
If it had been blocked, it would be in the block log. The block log is empty. At least, it is on the English Wikipedia - we are talking about the English Wikipedia, yes?
I expect the IP address is blocked - the block message will tell you.
2007/10/28, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
If it had been blocked, it would be in the block log. The block log is empty. At least, it is on the English Wikipedia - we are talking about the English Wikipedia, yes?
No, it's not the English one I'm talking about now. Although I would imagine there are other bots having the same problem there.
No, it's not the English one I'm talking about now. Although I would imagine there are other bots having the same problem there.
You don't think it would, perhaps, be useful to tell us which one it is, then?
I don't know about other languages, but the English Wikipedia has a bot policy that determines when bots are and aren't allowed to edit, and when they get bot flags. I expect other projects have similar policies, and they probably include maximum edit rates for bots without flags, and they probably have a process by which you can request a flag if you want to edit faster than that rate. I can't see any project handing out flags to any account that looks like a bot without the owner requesting it.
Hoi, There are many projects and they are in different stages of development. There are projects where there is no policy. It is assumed that there is a commonality between the projects. This commonality is what makes certain things work. However, things break down when the amount of effort involved becomes too big.
Andre is with his Robbot one of the oldest bots. The amount of effort that Andre has put into creating interwiki links is astounding. Andre's bot works on most if not all Wikipedias. There are more then 250. There are several projects that hardly function, where there is no clear "village pump". And at some stage, as Andre reports, the whole mechanism of doing the bot works breaks down when bots policies are starting to exists.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/28/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
No, it's not the English one I'm talking about now. Although I would imagine there are other bots having the same problem there.
You don't think it would, perhaps, be useful to tell us which one it is, then?
I don't know about other languages, but the English Wikipedia has a bot policy that determines when bots are and aren't allowed to edit, and when they get bot flags. I expect other projects have similar policies, and they probably include maximum edit rates for bots without flags, and they probably have a process by which you can request a flag if you want to edit faster than that rate. I can't see any project handing out flags to any account that looks like a bot without the owner requesting it.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
2007/10/28, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
You don't think it would, perhaps, be useful to tell us which one it is, then?
os: at the moment, various others before.
I don't know about other languages, but the English Wikipedia has a bot policy that determines when bots are and aren't allowed to edit, and when they get bot flags. I expect other projects have similar policies, and they probably include maximum edit rates for bots without flags, and they probably have a process by which you can request a flag if you want to edit faster than that rate. I can't see any project handing out flags to any account that looks like a bot without the owner requesting it.
Well, the cases I talk about are the bot policy changing from "no bot policy" to "block all non-registered bots at sight." As for requesting bot flags: I still don't see why *I* should be the one to request a bot flag for my bot. Perhaps I should ask permission to *run* my bot, but even then I would prefer to get a mention if that's introduced after I have run my bot for several months or years rather than noticing it by having my bot blocked.
So here a statement once more: * If I need permission to run my bot on your language, notify me of that. In particular if that need is created after my bot already has run there without problems for months or even years * If you want my bot to have a botflag, I have no objections to that. If you want information or remarks from me, I'm happy to give them * If you want *me* to ask for a botflag, then also explain to me why *I* should ask *you* for something that *you* want
On 28/10/2007, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/10/28, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
You don't think it would, perhaps, be useful to tell us which one it is, then?
os: at the moment, various others before.
I don't know about other languages, but the English Wikipedia has a bot policy that determines when bots are and aren't allowed to edit, and when they get bot flags. I expect other projects have similar policies, and they probably include maximum edit rates for bots without flags, and they probably have a process by which you can request a flag if you want to edit faster than that rate. I can't see any project handing out flags to any account that looks like a bot without the owner requesting it.
Well, the cases I talk about are the bot policy changing from "no bot policy" to "block all non-registered bots at sight." As for requesting bot flags: I still don't see why *I* should be the one to request a bot flag for my bot. Perhaps I should ask permission to *run* my bot, but even then I would prefer to get a mention if that's introduced after I have run my bot for several months or years rather than noticing it by having my bot blocked.
So here a statement once more:
- If I need permission to run my bot on your language, notify me of
that. In particular if that need is created after my bot already has run there without problems for months or even years
- If you want my bot to have a botflag, I have no objections to that.
If you want information or remarks from me, I'm happy to give them
- If you want *me* to ask for a botflag, then also explain to me why
*I* should ask *you* for something that *you* want
In terms of a possible enhancement, would it be useful to be able to create a particular user on all Wikipedia language projects with the same settings (e.g. bot-flagged, administrator, &c.)? Users which serve important roles for Wikipedia-as-a-whole (such as User:Robbot) could be treated this way.
Will this be possible under SUL?
This is one of the enhancement requests that is wanted, but will need to be done after SUL. (Yes, it is possible, Wikia has something like this where all users in the "janitor" group have administrator status on whatever Wikia wiki they go on.)
On 10/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/10/2007, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/10/28, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
You don't think it would, perhaps, be useful to tell us which one it
is, then?
os: at the moment, various others before.
I don't know about other languages, but the English Wikipedia has a bot policy that determines when bots are and aren't allowed to edit, and when they get bot flags. I expect other projects have similar policies, and they probably include maximum edit rates for bots without flags, and they probably have a process by which you can request a flag if you want to edit faster than that rate. I can't see any project handing out flags to any account that looks like a bot without the owner requesting it.
Well, the cases I talk about are the bot policy changing from "no bot policy" to "block all non-registered bots at sight." As for requesting bot flags: I still don't see why *I* should be the one to request a bot flag for my bot. Perhaps I should ask permission to *run* my bot, but even then I would prefer to get a mention if that's introduced after I have run my bot for several months or years rather than noticing it by having my bot blocked.
So here a statement once more:
- If I need permission to run my bot on your language, notify me of
that. In particular if that need is created after my bot already has run there without problems for months or even years
- If you want my bot to have a botflag, I have no objections to that.
If you want information or remarks from me, I'm happy to give them
- If you want *me* to ask for a botflag, then also explain to me why
*I* should ask *you* for something that *you* want
In terms of a possible enhancement, would it be useful to be able to create a particular user on all Wikipedia language projects with the same settings (e.g. bot-flagged, administrator, &c.)? Users which serve important roles for Wikipedia-as-a-whole (such as User:Robbot) could be treated this way.
Will this be possible under SUL?
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 10/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
In terms of a possible enhancement, would it be useful to be able to create a particular user on all Wikipedia language projects with the same settings (e.g. bot-flagged, administrator, &c.)? Users which serve important roles for Wikipedia-as-a-whole (such as User:Robbot) could be treated this way.
Will this be possible under SUL?
CommonsDelinker is another prime candidate for this
cohesion ha scritto:
On 10/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
In terms of a possible enhancement, would it be useful to be able to create a particular user on all Wikipedia language projects with the same settings (e.g. bot-flagged, administrator, &c.)? Users which serve important roles for Wikipedia-as-a-whole (such as User:Robbot) could be treated this way.
Will this be possible under SUL?
CommonsDelinker is another prime candidate for this
As soon as it will still be possible for individual projcts to deflag a particular bot, I second the proposal. On it.wiki we have repeatedly denied bot status to CommonsDelinker since too often it delinks only temporary deleted images. We still let it run, but unflagged.
Cruccone
So here a statement once more:
- If I need permission to run my bot on your language, notify me of
that. In particular if that need is created after my bot already has run there without problems for months or even years
I guess you can consider the block as notification. The block summary should point to the appropriate place to request permission, if that's the only notification you get, of course.
- If you want my bot to have a botflag, I have no objections to that.
If you want information or remarks from me, I'm happy to give them
- If you want *me* to ask for a botflag, then also explain to me why
*I* should ask *you* for something that *you* want
Try looking at it like this:
You want to run your bot at a certain speed. They require you to have permission to run your bot at that speed. You've acknowledged that it's fair to expect you to request permission to run your bot. If their rules say they will only grant permission if you have a bot flag, then requesting permission and requesting a bot flag become the same thing, and something you need to do, not something they can do for you.
Of course, if they want interwiki bots to run on their project, they will need to make it possible for such requests to be made in English (and preferably other major languages), for practical reasons.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org