User talk:Mdann52

22 July 2024
Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book? Obituary: JamesR Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Hi, thanks for stepping up with the bot! I've noticed that as well as removing blocked accounts from the UAA list the bot is also deleting comments left by admins on unblocked accounts, such as here. Are you able to change this? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe Interesting, I think that's an issue with some cached content, where the edit you made was just after the bot updated the page.I'll add a patch in later on. Mdann52 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post here as well this time, instead of the BRFA, but the bot also removed a few line breaks for some reason at WP:AIV/TB2 -> Special:Diff/1235508948.

At least the one after the section title was incorrect, when looking at the way the page looked after it. – 2804:F1...2D:A904 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... I can't recreate that one!. I've tweaked some blankspace stripping which should help though. Mdann52 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small follow-up quibble that the bot appears to be deleting reports but leaving the bullet points behind, resulting in pages like this. Is the bot able to remove the asterisks as well? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Interesting one - Twinkle adds an extra line when reporting sometimes, but not always. I made an assumption the only bullet we care about is the ones containing the reports. These are cleaned up if there are comments after.

I'll clean up any extra blank lines after the report now, as it seems the easier solution than trying to figure out what makes TW change behaviour - I don't know if this was added to be compatible with the previous version of the bot however. Mdann52 (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's removing all the bullet points, even ones that should still remain! What a monkey's paw… jlwoodwa (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten where this was so didn't mention it earlier, but the extra line is intentional: MediaWiki:Gadget-twinklearv.js#L-646

It links to this discussion on how to make the page better for people with dyslexia. – 2804:F1...0D:DFE4 (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew that an "empty list entry" was completely ignored. Is this an intentional MediaWiki feature? I can't find it documented anywhere on meta: or mw:, but I haven't done an exhaustive search. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa: It's going to be in the HTML engine. An empty list element is renderer with "class=mw-empty-elt" applied to it in HTML, which is then supressed in CSS. Mdann52 (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

extra line issue sorted. Mdann52 (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fix to this bug may have overcorrected a bit – comments on blocked users are now being left behind, effectively adding them to the preceding report. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one Special:Diff/1236103305, at AIV this time. – 2804:F1...81:19C4 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mdann52 (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happened again – maybe because the comment used ** instead of *:? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why - PWB has no neat way to filter on lists so having to do it manually, and couldn't find any examples of ** being used. Fixed. Mdann52 (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bot hasn't been removing reports for the last ~3 hours, is it intentional? – 2804:F1...0D:DFE4 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2804:F14:8099:7C01:583A:B9E1:DF0D:DFE4 given it a poke, should be working now. I've moved it to toollabs, and it timed out due to a lag issue. Mdann52 (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have tried asking first 😅, thank you for being so prompt. – 2804:F1...0D:DFE4 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, why didn't it remove the 68.95.121.73 report at AIV?

That IP was already blocked when it removed the 2 accounts. – 2804:F1...0D:DFE4 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2804:F14:8099:7C01:583A:B9E1:DF0D:DFE4 looks like the bot has backed off due to replication lag (aka the servers being busy - or at least, it's got a "try again later" response back the last ~30 attempts to edit). I'll dig into it tomorrow though. Mdann52 (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this edit summary is a bug – neither the talk page nor the block log suggests that account creation was blocked. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa: - sorted. Looks like in the block info API response, "no create" actually means account creation is enabled... weird Mdann52 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article I created in 2018 downball was hijacked, so I recreated the article last month as down-ball and it got deleted. I handled the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Down-ball and Deletion Review Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_July_5#Down-ball like a newb which resulted in my article staying deleted and moved back to the draft space. Draft:Downball_(wall_and_ball_game) It was not a good experience and left me quite flat for a short time.

I've been taking part in a number of AfDs recently and am interested in looking into how others who nom AfDs vote and whether they have created many articles. You appear to be one of those who nom AfDs but have been quite prolific in creating articles too.

I'd like to ask for your input. Now it seems to me that the best thing to do is to undo the downball hijack. Any advice appreciated? thanks, Rockycape (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockycape: firstly, no need to ping me here :) Just to note I've seen this, I'm going to do some cleanup to the draft now, but please give me a couple of days to get my head around the situation! Mdann52 (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - understood and thanks, Rockycape (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I succeed. Appreciate your common sense remarks in a formal process. BusterD (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD I see the point you're trying to make, and I didn't mean to patronise you if it came across like that! Sometimes, things need to be said.

I see your point about BLP, had it been 2021/early 2022 I would have completely agreed with you. Mdann52 (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're cool. I don't remember a time when you and I were not cool. And we've both been at it a while. I like the clash, frankly. On this issue I see some huge problems with the casual way wikipedians agree to sourcing living people through purely career-detailing sources. Might as well be IMDB. My issues derive from having a growing number of friends who may reasonably meet NOTE and have become Wikipedia BLP subjects (and sometimes in 2024, no longer living). The articles are largely terrible, always vastly out of date and reflect badly on the covered. I mostly choose not to edit these subjects myself. I wish there was an option of allowing the BLP subject a way of effectively interacting with the talk page, once notability was formally established (to keep out the "advertisers"). I can't envision a path forward with this. I cannot be the only wikipedian in this situation, watching his friends' public reputation suffer because somebody thought a crappy article about a respected artist would be fine (when NO article would be preferable to offal). BusterD (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I've noticed that the AIV board currently has a lot of accounts/IPs listed on it that have already been blocked. Is the bot down? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: - bot was happily chugging along - but wasn't doing anything on that page as this entry upset it due to the extra space. Fixed and patched. Mdann52 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]