User talk:JJMC89

This user has opted out of talkbacks

Please stop operating bots at WP

You just reverted my query on your bot talk page, without explanation, and marked it "minor". If you cannot address questions or negative feedback more constructively, please stop operating WP bots. My discussion with the admin who closed the RfC was much more constructive. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear: If you paid attention to the page, you'd see that it is a soft redirect to meta:User talk:Magic links bot. This means that any questions or comments belong there, not where you put them. Please pay closer attention when trying to leave comments for someone. Redirect pages are rarely watched closely. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: Are you for real? I went to to the specified bot page and left my comment at the talk page and received a (non-)response a half-hour later. Your silence on what I actually posted makes me think that you agree that JJMC89 should not be operating WP bots. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear: Please go back and reread what I wrote. You'll see I clearly told you where you should have posted your comment. The bot talk page clearly had a redirect notice as well as a notice when you went to edit that you should post all comments over at meta:User talk:Magic links bot. It's not a hard concept. I suspect if you post your comment over where you're supposed to post it, you may receive a response. As for whether JJMC89 should be operating a bot, that's a load of bollocks. Please don't attribute opinions to someone when they clearly have not expressed that opinion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you please quote for me this "notice when you went to edit that you should post all comments over at meta:User talk:Magic links bot"? Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe:Sorry, Nihonjoe, perhaps you missed this without a ping. Whenever you have chance. Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear: When you edit the page, there's a commented-out notice stating "Report all issues at meta". Additionally, when you go to the page, it has a large link titled "meta:User talk:Magic links bot" with a line underneath stating "This page is a soft redirect." That should be enough clues to point you to the correct place.

If that's not enough, I've (as of a few days ago) made an edit notice that appears when you edit the page, telling you "Please do not leave any comments or questions here. Instead, please go to meta:User talk:Magic links bot and leave the comments and questions there. Thank you." The last one wasn't there when you made your edits, but the others should have been enough of a hint. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe:I appreciate this change. Will you you make it to all bot talk pages? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear: No. Not all (I would say most don't, actually) bot talk pages have soft redirects to Meta. However, if someone else has one, they are welcome to use the template as they see fit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for attending to this Joe. — JJMC89 09:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

If you had bothered to post on the correct page, then I would have responded there. — JJMC89 09:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume (just my opinion, Nihonjoe, just my opinion), that it would be unproductive at this point to discuss whether this bot's edit summary was sufficiently clear. But if you persist in running bots, then please make future edit summaries clear for a broad audience of editors. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

What is your specific problem with the edit summary, and what is your suggestion for a better edit summary? Give us an example, please. SQL^{Query me!} 03:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear: - would you be able to articulate what is wrong with the edit summary the bot uses presently, and give us an example of a more helpful summary, please? SQL^{Query me!} 03:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@SQL:@SkyWarrior:What is wrong: The summary was not understandable by me or (would you honestly disagree?) by a random editor. The links provided did not provide much help, absent an investigation. A condensed version of this explanation plus a link to the full explanation would have done the trick. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear: OK - please give me an example edit summary that you think is clearer. SQL^{Query me!} 02:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear: most editors would understand that the edits were being made per the result of an RfC (or two, in the case), even if they don't know what the RfCs were about. It really is that simple; just simply saying that the edits were being made per the result of a discussion is sufficient, just as long as the discussion is linked to. No need to explain in specifics. Most editors don't need an explanation beyond that. SkyWarrior 02:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@SkyWarrior:Most editors have become insensate to the barrage of bot edits clogging their watchlists. Is it really too much to ask that the bots' change summaries or even just the summaries' links be directly understandable? "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it." --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear: the current edit summary is accurate and sufficient to most editors. Also, you can hide bot edits in your watchlist (there's a checkbox at the top) if you're really bothered by them; most editors should know this already, and if they don't, it's not exactly hard to find. SkyWarrior 02:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@SkyWarrior:So, you are saying that it is too much to ask that the bots' change summaries or even just the summaries' links be directly understandable? And that editors who see bot edits with unclear edit summaries should just ignore them?--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless you're an experienced editor who knows what the bot should be doing and just checking to see if it is doing the edits properly (which you are not), then yeah, pretty much. Just ignore them and let editors who know what's going on deal with the bots. At least, that's my view of it. SkyWarrior 03:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This is childish. I am an experienced editor (as should be clear), and yet I do not not accept that any bot edit is acceptable just because it is a bot. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hobbes Goodyear, I think that the edit summary was sufficiently clear, that the bot was making changes per the result of two RfCs, which were both linked in the edit summary. Edit summaries don't always need to explain everything in great detail, especially when there is something else to link to. SkyWarrior 04:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear:I agree. Please provide an example of an edit summary that wasn't clear. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe:Here's how you do it: Go to the bot's user page and, on the left, click on User Contributions link. This will bring up a list of changes, with links to the articles and the edit summaries to the right of them, in parentheses. I think you will find that they are all the same. Please see this diff for an example of an unclear edit summary. It says (minus links), "(Replace magic links with templates per local RfC and MediaWiki RfC). --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear: the edit summaries are all the same because it's the same task. I don't see what's unclear about "Replace magic links with templates per local RfC and MediaWiki RfC". That's what the edit it: replace an ISBN magic link with a ISBN template, per the two RFCs linked. It's hard to imagine a clearer edit summary than this.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear: I don't have anything else to add to what has already been said. I recommend turning off bot edits so they don't appear in your Watchlist. They seem to bother you, even when they clearly link to what they are doing (as in this case (twice, even!)). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

A REITERATION: Just so it does get lost in in of the this-&-that of the topic above, I just want to reiterate that I do not think that you should be operating bots at WP. Why: You created a bot that explains what it does in a vague and poor way. You erased my query on the topic with no explanation. You refuse to engage in the subsequent discussion. And that subsequent discussion by others avoided discussing the actual issue--and this avoidance, of course, makes one assume that you and they do not understand or care about the actual issue. And you literally erased this comment as soon as it appeared. Thy do you keep avoiding the question???? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear: If you have a problem with it, bring it up at WP:BAG. That's the correct forum for your concerns. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time repeating what the others above have already said. You haven't provided an edit summary that would be batter then the current BAG approved one, so I'm not going to consider changing it since I (and others) think it is sufficient. — JJMC89 20:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Um, what exactly _did_ they say? You (and these..."others"...seem to have spent your time avoiding saying anything. Please say SOMETHING. I have put a query on BAG and will see what I can do to have you and your bots removed from making changes in future. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

BAG member here - Also the one that approved this bot. I've asked you directly and repeatedly how the edit summary could be changed to be clearer, but have been ignored every last time. Once more, if you have an example edit summary you'd like to propose that's better - I'd be very interested, and I bet JJMC89 would be as well. SQL^{Query me!} 23:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hobbes Goodyear, in case you haven't seen the notice at WT:BAG, the proper place to give grievances is at WP:BOTN. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion has been moved to WP:BOTN#Concern about Magic links bot. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• I went ahead and TE protected that redirect page, to avoid further misunderstandings, hopefully. If you want me to change the level or remove it altogether, just let me know.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Some positive ISBN stuff

Don't know if you've seen any of the kerfuffle on my talk, at ANI, or elsewhere, but apparently the ISBN cat isn't fully populated, despite being activated something stupid like two years ago. I found that searching insource:/ISBN [0-9]+/ did a pretty good job of populating my to-do list. Of course, if you're using some other method of populating your bot runs, then by all means continue doing so, but since it doesn't appear you've had any comments regarding it I thought I'd say something. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

See Category talk:Pages using ISBN magic links for a link to a phab ticket. Special:TrackingCategories currently take somewhere between a long time (many months) and forever to fill up when MediaWiki code changes introduce a new category. For some reason, the community is opposed to a null edit bot, and the WMF doesn't have a ready fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware. I'm trying to stay out of the drama. Currently the bot is using the categories. Once the non-talk pages are clear, I'll start generating pages using other methods. I do wish that phab:T157670 would get fixed though. — JJMC89 03:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A bot support request

Hi,

I have placed a bot support request Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Correcting_redirection, pl. see if you can take up or recomond some one to take up this request.

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have left a note there. This is not a good task for a bot. — JJMC89 20:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot request

Hi JJMC89, would you be interested in running a task to replace Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 13? That bot has been malfunctioning on the task recently and the operator has been absent. High level outline is that it would have a 2x/month run to send some talk page notices and emails, and a daily? run to remove lines that are no longer relevant on Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017. Thank you for considering. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Sure! I'll start to draft a script for this. — JJMC89 19:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Some parts of the discussion on the original BRFA are outdated. In general:

1. On FIRST DAY OF MONTH:
   1. Create new section
   2. Add list of users (this should ONLY be done in this cycle - if a user is removed by other editors it is OK
      1. Send talk page notices to users
      2. Send email to users
2. On [sometimes towards the end of the month] could just be the 24'th - or (last day of month )-7days
   1. Send second version of talk page notice to users
   2. Send email to users
3. On each DAY(this is adjustable)
   1. Remove any users that have made an edit or logged action

• The crats mailing list doesn't exist anymore, don't worry about that.
• You don't really need to worry about the super edge case that the only edit was a deleted edit - if you can grab that from database that is fine.
• You may want to make a white list - there is a certain edge user that likes to trip up these reports.
• Don't assert &bot on these - watchlisters would want to see it.

Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 20:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for checking the citations on the Draft Article of Ryan Drummond! Amir Abdullah (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)