Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EmxBot
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was
Speedily Approved.
Operator: Emx
Automatic or Manually Assisted:
automatic
Programming Language(s):
python - pywikipedia
Function Summary:
- adding interwiki links
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):
continuous
Edit rate requested: 10 per minute
Function Details:
adding interwiki links to articles, categories and templates, and to FA articles;
Discussion
[edit]Is there any particular language wiki to which you are placing the interwikis? Martinp23 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bot works on bs.wiki too, and will mostly add interwiki links from that wiki. --Emx 17:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedily Approved. This bot shall run with a flag. —METS501 (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Note that this bot was temporarily blocked today for performing unapproved, trivial edits. --kingboyk 16:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- May bot edit rate be increased so the maximum allowed would be 25? And can it be approved to correct common mistakes and typos (as agreed) - U.K. - UK (like CmdrObot does) and fixing templates (ncd to subst:ncd and similar)? Thanks in advance. --Emx 12:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that I'd hate to have another bot changing U.K. to UK, just for me to change back, are these functions necessary? There seem to be polenty of bots around subst-ing templates, etc. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is plenty of interwiki bots too, and they all work. I would like to help with bot in any way it can help. Currently it's just adding interwiki links. --Emx 15:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- And that does seem useful, yes. You'll realise the worry, though, after the very recent problem of the bot performing a task for which it wasn't approved, at a rate for which it wasn't approved. I wonder if it isn't a bit soon after that to ask for higher speeds and more functions? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because of that I'm requesting higher speed and more functions, so such problems shall not occur. Time is not important and I can wait, I've just put requests here so they can be considered. --Emx 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- And that does seem useful, yes. You'll realise the worry, though, after the very recent problem of the bot performing a task for which it wasn't approved, at a rate for which it wasn't approved. I wonder if it isn't a bit soon after that to ask for higher speeds and more functions? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm curious about the typos request. I thought that there was a policy that said that typos could never be corrected by an automated bot. Is that still true? --After Midnight 0001 03:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)