| Revision as of 02:16, 27 July 2006 view sourceXaosflux (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Importers, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators83,892 edits WP:B/AG← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:18, 27 July 2006 view source Essjay (talk | contribs)21,413 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| I've got plenty of program process experience, but am lacking in python skills, so will stay away from code analysis of those types of requests if added. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | I've got plenty of program process experience, but am lacking in python skills, so will stay away from code analysis of those types of requests if added. — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Sounds fine to me; I'll add you to ]. <tt>;)</tt> <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:18, 27 July 2006
User talk:Essjay/Top User:Essjay/Talk TOC
WP:B/AG
Sure I'd go for being in the group. The way I see it there are a few parts to bot approvals (aside form the published criteria):
- Process analysis; some bot proposals need coaching in effective editing
- Policy applications; some bots skirt very close to policy issues.
- Community affect and input; there are some thigns people just don't want bots doing (like flagging pages for deletion).
I've got plenty of program process experience, but am lacking in python skills, so will stay away from code analysis of those types of requests if added. — xaosflux 02:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me; I'll add you to the bag. ;) Essjay (Talk) 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)