User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2017/July

Active discussions

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)

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. SQLQuery 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? SQLQuery 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. SQLQuery 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. SQLQuery 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)

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)

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)

Maybe for an encore, the bureaucrat activity report? –xenotalk 11:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. Crat activity will be more difficult to determine. — JJMC89 19:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello JJMC89, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested Edit

Hi JJMC89. Thanks for all your help on the Avast page. I think the bulk of the promotional content has been trimmed now.

I don't know if your interests are exclusively in IT security, but there is another software company page at Smartsheet, where I have also disclosed a COI and requested some basic updates last week. If you have a minute to take a look, it would be greatly appreciated.

CorporateM (Talk) 13:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the article and commented on the talk page. — JJMC89 18:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Roy Nissany website

Dear JJMC89, I do not understand the reason why you deleted all of my works, edits which I completed in the last month on this site? I appreciate if you can give me more explanation. It should be noted that I worked with Chanoch Nissany, I was his press and communication chief during his entire racing career, I organized all of his press and media appearances! I got the authorization from Roy and Chanoch Nissany that I can edit their wikipedia sites, updating photos, information, statistical, factual context. Every photo on their wikipedia sites (both Roy and Chanoch Nissany) is copyrighted by Chanoch Nissany who authorized me solely to edit his and his son's wikipedia site! I guess I do not need to explain more how Roy and Chanoch disappointed because of the action that the updated wikipedia site of Roy was deleted! I contacted Fastily| and he informed about "Free licenses disallowing non-commercial use, no derivatives, or Wikipedia-only use are prohibited on Wikipedia. You may re-upload the file under a different license if you wish." So I will upload these photos again under a different license. If it was the issue that you delete all of the information which I put on the site, please reinstate the updated biographical information and scores etc. which I completed in the last one month. If you need any authorization about my activity, please give my your email address and I send the authorization from the Nissanys as well as my credential references as an author, as a sports journalist for 20 years who attended only the highly regarded and most prestigious events all around the world. I greatly appreciate if you can inform me how we can solve this untenable situation asap. Thanks for your cooperation in advance! Mrandrew16 —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The above means that you have a clear conflict of interest and therefore should not be directly editing the article. You should post on the article's talk page using {{request edit}} to request changes. You added unsourced content to a biography of a living person – don't. Content about living people must be reliably sourced. You also added non-free images of a living person. Per WP:NFCC#1 such images are not permitted as a free image can be created (or in this case already exists). — JJMC89 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image comment

Your image comment on the poster at Akira Kurosawa asked about the fair use of this image in the article which is provided currently at Wikicommons as: {{Non-free poster|image has rationale=yes}}

This looks reasonable and the image is also shared with the film article for this movie at The Bad Sleep Well as licensed for fair use. Let me know if the treatment of this rationale at Wikicommons needs to be altered of modified. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: The image is on Wikipedia, not Commons. Every use of a non-free image must have a separate WP:FUR. Even if a FUR for Akira Kurosawa is added, I doubt that it would meet WP:NFCC#8. — JJMC89 14:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back with that. There may be an easy alternative in this case which would be to use another image currently in use for the film on Russian Wikipedia if you prefer it here: [1]. The use of unaltered posters for films generally is not challenged as fair use for something which is in effect promoting the film. See the pages for the current Oscar winners La La Land and Moonlight which also make use of such unaltered poster art without copyvio issues. Regarding Kurosawa, either of the two images work well in the article and I'll change to the one that's preferable. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Any film poster still likely fails WP:NFCC#8 in an article that is not about the film. — JJMC89 01:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiUser7

Thought this might interest you. If you see this pattern again feel free to let me know. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. I'll keep an eye out. — JJMC89 16:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:DnipropetrovskCategory:Dnipro

Do you really think that the question is discutable? :))--Unikalinho (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. All category renames must go through WP:CFD. — JJMC89 14:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello, Can I ask why you removed my edit request? I think that CC-BY-SA-3.0 should be updated to version 4.0 at this page: Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. I am an OTRS agent (see my userpage on Commons). I regularly reply to emails sent to photosubmision queue. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: I replaced it and answered it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The page that you requested an edit to, Wikipedia:Contact us, does not does not mention any license. — JJMC89 22:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, it looks like JJMC89 replaced it, I edit conflicted with that, and then I answered it. I edited the two (or three) subpages that had that info. It's all good now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A much deserved barnstar

  The Cleanup Barnstar
For a multitude of helpful edits. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, 99! Always good to see you around. — JJMC89 04:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You are everywhere

Dude. I'm filing for approval of my bots and in just about every wikipedia I file for approval, I see your bot there too. :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Greg Nelson (producer)

In reference to Greg Nelson, producer.....This is Greg Nelson writing this note. I did not found Refuge Records with Jack Hafer. That sentence is totally incorrect. That source came from a book that was inaccurate...and now it is inaccurate on my wiki page. Additionally, the reason I listed my book, "Runaway Horse" is because I am listed as an author. There is no other reference to any book I have written on my wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregnel7415 (talkcontribs) 20:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, you should not directly edit an article about yourself. Please use the article's talk page. — JJMC89 21:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "JJMC89/Archives/2017/July".