Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you have been through the proofreading process, please do mark the page as proofread. It means the next person to proofread the page will be able to move it to the next stage of Validated. — billinghurstsDrewth08:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
PSM TOC creation
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your sterling work on Tancred. It was next on my to do list and now I can cross it off and not think about it. I hadn't thought of doing the Chapter List as a multicolumn - looks good. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried to proofread as well against the file on the Internet Archives file, at least for formatting of paragraphs and italics. For sure some mistake is in there, but more than that was not easy without side-page text :-) Mpaa (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You made a note about a continuing footnote. I addressed this note at Laverock's page as we have a new, improved schema for managing such. — billinghurstsDrewth15:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd say {{PD-US-no notice}}. I checked, that is a Commons template too. The book is US-published, so US copyright is the only one to worry about, even at Commons. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Number Forms is a redirect to the PSM article. :-) I feel a bit stupid because the article title is instantly added to the searchables. So, I added the Eurasia is a redirect as well. I am sorry for misinforming you due to a temporary memory failure. :-)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry to make you crazy:
Regarding the floating image tables, if you wish to create a smaller image than the usual 200px, then size adjustments must be made in two places: One for the image, and one for the table cell. Then you get a smaller image as in the above page where I also reduced the table to 150px.
{|width="150" {{ts|sm85|mr5|line-height:95%;|fll}} <----- changed to 150px
|{{ts|ac|sc}}|
|-
|[[File:PSM V37 D400 Tandem locomotive.jpg|frameless|center|150px|]] <----- changed to 150px
|-
|{{ts|ac}}|{{sc|Fig. 3.-Tandem Locomotive}}<br/>(end view). <---- remove sc and embed the description in the {{sc}} template.
|}
If the description line contains both small caps and regular lower case, as it does in this page, then one must also change the shorthand parameters of the cell.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Mpaa, thanks for the note. I am not very savvy with how this kind of linking works -- I was mostly just trying to copy what I saw elsewhere in the page, and muddle through figuring out how it works. So I am unlikely to have any brilliant breakthroughs! Feel free to revert my edit, of course, if the page works better without those links. -Pete (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
IRC cloack request
request
About your ideas
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. If you have an idea how to set up a PSM progress, I would gladly contribute to the effort. The first thing that came to mind is that some of the Wikisource:WikiProject_Popular_Science_Monthly sub-pages are redundant and can be combined into a comprehensive info. I always felt that there are too many sub-pages dealing with navigational issues, but kept delaying to deal with them, like Volume, volume dates, indexes, etc. I would like to incorporate them into a single entry with the addition of the progression of it's components, like images, tables, proofread pages, TOC, indexes, anchors, or whatever. I am just throwing these ideas as I write this. Your thoughts? — Ineuw talk21:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I was thinking something of this kind, just to give you the look and feel: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2011, of course tailored on PSM needs. I do not know which capabilities WS has to provide the numbers that we would need. But we can ask for assistance to the experts. I have the feeling that with the proper categorization of pages and tagging, one should be able to get the number we need. They can make this kind of calculations: Wikisource_talk:Proofread_of_the_Month#November on progress vs. pages status. I think that, in the same way pages with image not inseted yet might be counted if tagged properly, pages tagged with {{PSMTable}}, etc. Maybe a template similar to the one they use in WP should be created, etc.
As first steps, I would say: 1. define what to shall be measured, 2. check what is needed to do it with he help of someone expert in this. Then one could see what is the next step then (e.g. ask for bots to add the info we need, etc.) Does this make sense? --Mpaa (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Apologize for the non-response as I need a little time off from Wikisource because of having neglected personal matters for quite a while. I agree with you 100% that it's best to define what we want, before spending a lot of time in addition to our proofreading. Currently, I am studying the above Wikipedia backlog link to learn from it. Also, I think that we should move this conversation to the project's much neglected talk page. It's a more appropriate (central) place for discussing our ideas and it will show up more accurately on the Recent changes list.— Ineuw talk20:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
submitted for consideration
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I know that the whole series of "The Development of American Industries Since Colombus" is wrong and I plan to add short subtitles as I've done in "New Chapters in the Warfare of Science" series. Just because in later articles the main title became the sub-title, this has no bearing on the main namespace title design where we can be consistent. Before creating or changing any main namespace pages, I will submit the revised title list for your consideration. — Ineuw talk09:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Regardless of what we do in the Main namespace, a reference place for multi-part articles is needed and that is your list. It is also needed to cross-check if an article is actually part of a series and to make naming uniform. The rest just makes navigation easier for readers but would not be of any help in keeping control and consistency. --Mpaa (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I've just emailed you the python script that generates the following table. I'm happy to alter and/or run this any time, indefinitely or until you're up to speed and ready to take over. (Sorry for cluttering up your talk page — feel free to delete the table or move it somewhere else) Hesperian02:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. As promised, the following is what hopefully will define my ideas.
The TOC in the main namespace is of paramount importance since everything else flows from there. Thus I plan to complete all the TOC's as the primary contribution.
Also decided to alter my approach and collect the article titles without proofreading, since I won't be inserting articles in the main namespace. Causing rancor is really not worth it, regardless of my losing article categorization before a complete article is proofread.
The collected title data will allow me to generate the header pages as before but plan to store them in a Wikisource PSM project sub page, surround by the
tags. Whenever an article is proofread, we just copy/cut the header and paste it in the main ns.
Along with the header data, I will also generate the index pages at the end of each volume in the Page namespace. When the proofread article is placed in the main ns, the index entry will be automatically be linked since they originate from the same data source.
Will keep updating article lists, authors lists, and any ancillary info that's collected.
Will continue to upload images at a rate of about 20 images per day minimum, I am currently working on images of volume 68 (~140).
Will continue to proofread title pages, pages with images and tables, and an occasional complete article, when of special interest.
Will present you with ideas that cross my mind and place them in my sandboxes.
I collected a great deal of information related to the project, so if you need to know something and save time, please feel free to connect. — Ineuw talk 06:38, 24 October 2011
(UTC)
Sounds good!An let's hope someone else will jump on board. If you look at number of pages to be proofread, that is huge :-))
If sometimes you do not feel like making a table, mark it with PSMTable. Every now and then I look in that box and fix something.
One minor question on music: I saw a lot of pages with music. Are you taking images for those as well or we just leave the indication that the page needs music? --Mpaa (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I also do the same with the pages marked with PSMTable - proofread a few at a time, and I just tagged some more yesterday. When it's a very large table and a fairly clean original, then convert it to a .png.
The music is problematic. a. I don't read music, and don't want to learn the software. b. Don't like to ask others, since everyone is busy with their work. c. Did a few images but the original is of very poor quality and require a lot of touch up, so for the time being I just tag the pages.
FYI, in addition to the images that go with the text, there are also hundreds of advertisements which I set aside for a later time to be dealt with, since they are of secondary importance to proofreading. — Ineuw talk15:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Ligature in the TOC
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Forgot to mention that ligatures like æ or Æ etc. are omitted from the TOC because it's best to restrict web titles to ANSI/ASCII. I already changed them in the coming Vol 42 TOC. — Ineuw talk20:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. When in doubt I have always put on hold, waiting for your revision first. E.g. The Glass Industry in Vol. 42 is Proofread, I am just waiting that the right multi-article is selected and then it can be transcluded. --Mpaa (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
One more thought. If you are regenerating the TOC completely, it must be verified that the previous/next links in the Main ns articles are still valid for already transcluded articles before/after what you will modify. --Mpaa (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Capitalization and more PSM editing history
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi.
Please consider posting the main namespace article titles in a sandbox, or email them to me. I will run the capitalization procedure and return them immediately.
History: You can omit the | notes = Scans link from article header. I inherited this from someone and at that time didn't know that the "Source" tab on top is the same link. I do keep it in the TOC's because that's not part of the scans.— Ineuw talk19:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Apologies 1 & 2
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Apology 1 is about my being ever so slow in realizing that you wanted me to create the TOC for volume 68. It's symptomatic, but it's not the advancing age - I was always like that. The next time you would like something, please advance the idea with some detail, and I will oblige, unless there is some emergency which prevents me to do so.
Apology 2. As I was looking for you online to apologize about #1, I wondered into your work in Vol 86 because I saw that you categorized the page as PSM maintenance. Thinking that something was wrong, I made a minor correction. Aside from the fact that this was your territory, I don't even know/understand what this hidden category is. :-)
No need to apologize for either 1&2. In #1 you were not slow, I did not expect you to do it. It takes me little effort to generate the TOC once I have the list I sent you by mail. It was good to check capitalization so we avoid the re-generation of the wrong article titles. The page is in maintenance as it needs author. With you Author dB I can now automatically check what is already present in your list or not. Pls send me an update every now and then so I can cross-check.
BTW, I saw that you created articles for the whole Vol 42, even if not proofread. I thought that you changed your mind after the discussion of the past weeks ... --Mpaa (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't change my mind. I only did it for Volume 42 since most articles were done, couldn't paste headers selectively just for completed articles, and also the header links would lack continuity.
Since you are working on V68 - the same volume in which the images are in the process of being uploaded, I will expedite the process so, as not to hinder you. - I will let you know how things are going with the images.
Also, if I can clean & proof the Volume Index at the back of the volume. As things stand, I ran into a formatting issue between old vol indexes done months/year ago, and recent ones. I must understand the issue in the differences. I suspect that the problem is with the new software update, but then, I don't understand why old indexes are not affected. Ignorance makes me suspect that old pages are recalled from archive??? Who knows. — Ineuw talk21:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Do not change your prios just for the images. It is full of work to be done in Vol 68. Proofread pages are lacking a lot of formatting. If I come across an image not ready yet, I will skip it. Take your own time. My progress will not be fast anyhow. In the meantime I am working on maintenance, after my request to Billinghurst.--Mpaa (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Maintenance is also what I am very concerned about so that it doesn't accumulate and overwhelm. Plans mentioned some time ago were not carved in stone, and I wasn't aware of these past issues with the exception of the ones I tagged with {{PSMTable}}. Now, I stopped to re-assess my plans. As old issues crop up, I prefer to resolve them rather than undertake new work.
There were 61 images were uploaded up to djvu 193. Still have another 83 pages but some have multiple images, however image preparation and upload is a quick and welcome distraction since I became progressively better at it. When I started I knew 0 about images.
Also, don't consider the Vol 68 TOC as final. It's missing info about articles that begin in mid page, and we don't yet know if any of the articles are multi-part.— Ineuw talk22:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I checked articles to build the table I sent you and no one begins in the middle of the page. Multi-part article: I identified only what I inserted in your list on PSM project page (see top part). I can't remember articles which might suggest to be a continuation, but I will re-check when proofreading first page. (unless I am wrong, which can always be ...). --Mpaa (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I commented on your discussion re: PSM maintenance
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi. Merged your author list to my master list, matched them to the Vol 68 Article titles and generated new PSM contributor lists (look at my contributions). If you sort the Change columns, it will show you the names & current contributions. You are welcome to add the new contributors and their contribution, if you wish.— Ineuw talk06:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I pasted your original Vol 42 TOC to see which article titles changed so that I can delete the incorrect ones. I didn't find any. Have you had them deleted? — Ineuw talk06:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I replaced the content of his articles with redirects to PSM (e.g. [2]) according to the directives B. gave. I did it for articles which pointed at a proper PSM structure (Vols<43). But if you want, you can move all of them. to me they are not very useful. --Mpaa (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It took awhile to refresh my memory about conversations I had with StateOfAvon about his contributions and I understand what you did. I was referring to a "deeper" level of his work and surprised that you can't read my mind :-).
At the start of StateOfAvon's contributions, I tried to convince him to place the work in his namespace because I had sufficient foresight to know that his selections and ideas are problematic in the present context. Namely that, while we have portals and categories in the traditional sense, I haven't seen a personal portal which selectively relates to a single user's particular interest.
Personally, I think that this is a unique idea which can be implemented within the framework of WS and even enhance additional contributor participation. However, then as now, I am not ready to present this idea because I haven't thought it through, it would delay my own proofreading progress. I am always confident that in time, a satisfactory solution will be found.
Essentially, I looked for a way to gently guide him to a better quality of proofreading in the context of WS and the PSM project. The end of the story is that he disappeared. Nevertheless, I will save his work to his namespace, and eventually create a main namespace "portal/access" of sorts that would find approval from the community and StateOfAvon, and use it as the foundation for the idea. — Ineuw talk07:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
my sandbox
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Hey if you could check out (on my Page) the PSM Vols 1 to 10 table, I borrowed the template you used for PSM stats for my direct article stats. I did one, but it looks funny. Is it supposed to look like that since it is 100% validated? And I hope you don't mind me using your progress bar.
My ultimate goal = make an easy to reference table showing each article and its status (i.e. to see which ones need worked on). If you have any suggestions or ideas, feel free to say them. - Tannertsf (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like that as you have only 98% pages validated. I was thinking that maybe is better to use number of pages. I found out that WS Sweden has a similar template based on number of pages. What do you think? See Swedish template?
How do you get those numbers? Are they real-time? I am trying to figure out a way on how that is done. Do you know how? Can you connect to freenode IRC? --Mpaa (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm just doing an old-fashioned way, which will initially take a while but after will be short. That is to count the lines of an article. For example, lets say one article has 1,000 lines. If the first pages were validated, then it would be something like 400 out of 1000, so it would be 40% on the progress bar. And so on, and so on. - Tannertsf (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
How do you do that? Do you have some scripts? I have asked how do they get the colored bar on top of the article. That is automatically done, so there must be a way. I think I found a work-around through the API:Query but that's beyond my programming skills. Which are very basic. --Mpaa (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I thought you were interested in the possibility of getting something that might save you time and give better accuracy. To be honest, when you say 'mine', that surprises me a bit as we are on a wiki after all ... I'll let you know if I find out more. As far as the Pagestatus template is concerned, I might change inputs to absolute numbers in the future. I still need to make up my mind on what is the best way to provide the input. --Mpaa (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, what I mean by "mine" is that before we put it onto the project, I want to finalize it. But I do also only want a couple of people to help at most, because I want to do this. Way too many past projects that were finished before I could barely start on them. And I want to do the line count because I feel a guesstimation is not practical - we need correct %'s. Sorry if I seem like a Nazi but I just want everything to work out well. - Tannertsf (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
To make things work well is also my goal. That's why I am investigating if these numbers can be get free of charge and correct, without investing time in getting them. Sorry if I am a bit busybody, just curious to see if I can learn from others. How will you do the counting of the lines and update of the information as the proofreading process proceed? --Mpaa (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Definitely not a busybody - I don't like the way people work so fast on here like its the end of the world or something. I will do the counting of the lines with a tool my friend uses, but can't give out. I will reassess it every 2-3 weeks. Yes, thats slow, but will have to do. Hence my comment to start this. - Tannertsf (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Some minor reorganization
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I've been quietly working to clean up after the two broken volumes so that I can get back to my old routine. I split the multiple part articles to two pages 1 & 2 because of its increasing size ~600. When you have the inclination, would you kindly look at them, and please feel free to modify them as you wish. — Ineuw talk04:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Had a look at them. Looks OK to me. These tables are really useful! I like to follow the chain in proofreading. --Mpaa (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, and I can't help but keep defending my approach because dealing with article titles, authors and organizing in general, as the first part of proofreading, reduces an incredible mess later on. Furthermore, it will be a better incentive to proofread a single article of personal interest. WS editors are greatly mistaken when comparing a magazine project with books.— Ineuw talk23:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
That is one of the paths I follow to proof read here and there. Sometimes multi-articles, sometimes Categories, as you might have noticed.
BTW, 2 things. 1) Page 737 is not very nice. Do you think it is worthwhile breaking into smaller images? I could do it if you agree, but I am not sure the effort will be worth the final result. second opinion appreciated. 2)I noticed that you are in contact with LJB. I have followed her in my watchlist and it would be very really good if we could make her interested in PSM. --Mpaa (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
That page on Arabic numerals was one of my first image efforts. :-) Please feel free to do anything you want with any part of the project. :-). I would love to get her interested in PSM. She's is a wonderful editor, but I presume that she is interested in the Atlantic Monthly, which was/is a very good and popular publication. — Ineuw talk23:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
PSM contributions by Italian scientists
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I don't know if you are interested, but there are a number of wonderful contributions by Italian scientists written up in PSM. The dearth of published material is due to a variety of reasons; in the 1870's it was because unification has taken up a great share of the meager resources, and later, I justifiably suspect that there was a confluence of language issues, as well as national rivalries among the European scientific circles. This is just another area of my many interests, since I consider myself an unabashed, albeit an idealistic admirer of the risorgimento and its three main players, Garibaldi, Mazzini, and count Cavour. :-)
About the evolution of the English language to its current usage, I would recommend proofreading pages post 1895. It amazes me the change that occurred with the short time of two decades. Enjoy. — Ineuw talk05:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
About contributions by Italian scientists written up in PSM. That would be nice. Is there an easy way to pin-point them? I came cross a few of them but randomly. --Mpaa (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. In about 10-15 volumes the downloaded .JP2 Djvu numbers were off, (usually by 2), from the our WS scan Djvu number. Corrected hundreds of them before uploading, but there may be a few that I missed. When you insert an image and notice that the Djvu doesn't match our Wikisource Djvu number, please tell me and I will move it immediately. Thanks.— Ineuw talk02:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I will. Is this related to my request here for Volume 10? In that case there was an offset 2 (p. 85 instead of 83) in the jp2 image I took. I didn't bother too much as it was taken from another scan. I named the image I posted as 83 to match the page number on djvu we are using and where we will swap the image. Hope what I did is correct. Can you cross-check it and notify George_Orwell_III if my request is not correct? --Mpaa (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. They are not related. :-). Whatever you did is fine as GO3 needs all the info to be sure. My image naming convention was the result of demands for our need to accurately identify the image location, (page numbers are not accurate), and the Commons' requirement that a description must accompany the image. I combined the two and that worked out great as everyone who uses the images appreciates it.
The downloaded .JP2 package contains one numbered file per page. (900 pages = 900 files), and the numbers correspond to our .djvu number, unless the volunteers make an error when scanning the pages. The situations include leaving their hands under the scanner and then attempting to correct, stopping and then restarting the job on the wrong page, two different machines are used in one volume, or two volunteers working on the same volume. Each error tells a different story, and one can unravel them on a cold winter day, when it's dark outside, its snowing, and one studies the tech info provided on the IA page of the volumes. Now, I check the file numbers with our .djvu numbers of the volume, and if there is an error, I correct. — Ineuw talk19:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Categorization
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. You can find the prepared headers HERE to save you time reconstructing them. Also, you don't have to bother with categorization, I will add THIS CATEGORY to every header and when time comes, I will categorize them properly. If this is not added, I won't find the articles unless I check every web page which is a slow process. Thanks. :-) — Ineuw talk19:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
:-)) Absolutely, but it's the only way articles can be identified properly. Even the PSMTable template is linked to a category. — Ineuw talk02:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I found this problematic as well. It's a beautiful effort, and I don't know how to incorporate it, because of the addition of some text not in our PSM original, and because of the Garamond font. If you have any ideas, please let me know.— Ineuw talk17:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I really like both solutions, but I think that in this case the note is better because this is not really two versions from PSM, only two versions of an article which, (I suspect based on past experience with PSM that) they shortened to suit the monthly issue. :-) — Ineuw talk01:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Bot running with no edit summary
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I'm just starting to look at Recent Changes for the last day or so and see that your bot is beavering away but it's not leaving an edit summary. Without it we can't see instantly what it's up to. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I know, I am using replace.py (python ..\pywikipedia\replace.py -cat:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_22 -fix:example, with example containing regex) to remove unwanted comment in notes field of header. I tried to use -summary option. I did not manage to get anything out of it, summary was blank in some tests I did in my User space. So I left it without option, at least it was writing some words. I should have asked on #wikisource ... I apologise for the inconvenience. If you can indicate how the option should be set, that would be appreciated. --Mpaa (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Addition. I tried some more. The only way I managed is one word only, with _ instead of blanks. I will use it like this until I will learn more. --Mpaa (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) Sorry, I can't help you there - this is out of my current field of knowledge. I've just reviewed WS:BOTS and I can't recall seeing a community request on the Scriptorium for this bot; I also note the expectation that a useful edit summary will be used. I'm going to have to request you stop the bot running until you've resolved this issues. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I tried to understand the process (I asked billinghurst who pointed me to the directive). As that was not reaaly clear to me, I chatted with Doug on which bots I was going to use and the process. My understanding was that if I use bots from pywikipedia, with no additional coding on my side, it was enough to create a Bot account and run the script. So now I am a bit lost in the next steps to resolve the issues. Do I have to ask on Scriptorium everytime I want to use replace.py for example? Are you connected to #wikisource right now? We might continue there. --Mpaa (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not an IRC user. The relevant section of the policy is WS:BOTS#Community authorisation. There's a section in WS:S for BOT approval requests. Just add a new subsection there with the name of your bot and what you are going to use it for in broad brushstrokes (e.g. "Maintaining PSM articles in the main namespace only"). Once you have approval from the community for its use then you can use it for the purpose you stated. It's only if you want to use the bot outside of your original field of reference that you would need to come back to WS:S to ask for approval for a different use. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
