User talk:Kanashimi: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:29, 7 January 2024

Archives

Archive 1

Stop cewbot!

The bot is making hundreds of bad edits. This is wrong! The article is FA class on MilHist, not A class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ I just read the discussion on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Issue with assessments not applying to WikiProject Lists template, and thought that the templates under Category: WikiProjects using a non-standard quality scale would inherit the class of {{WikiProject_banner_shell}}, so I changed the code. It looks like I made a mistake, right? Or maybe {{WikiProject Military history}} should also inherit the class of {{WikiProject_banner_shell}}, it just hasn't been set up yet? Kanashimi (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the code to see why it is not inheriting the FA-class. In the meantime it might be safer not to remove any Milhist ratings. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ I think this is something that can be solved by adjusting the Module:Banner shell code? Kanashimi (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can change the code, but I would worry about unintended consequences. As the class can be set by a custom mask without the class parameter being used (which is what I neglected to consider earlier), inheriting the class may result in the class being changed incorrectly. So I think the current code is best. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way the code is currently written, if the article is unassessed by the project then it will get the class from WPBS and push that through the custom mask. In this case the article is not unassessed (as the |A-Class=pass is sufficient to give it A-class rating). So it seems that I what I wrote is incorrect. We could look at rewriting the code so that if class is empty it will always use the PIQA rating, but this might produce other unintended consequences. It might be safer not to touch any of the opt-out projects. Sorry for causing confusion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History is not an opt-out project. It should use the PIQA rating if |class= is empty. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MilHist has opted out of PIQA because it uses its own quality scale, including the B-class checklist. This was further clarified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 171#Global assessments. However it will inherit the assessment in certain limited circumstances. Can I suggest you follow up here if you have any queries, and let Kanashimi continue with this important task without further changes to MilHist's assessments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is not acceptable. Military history articles are being stripped of their Featured Article rating. This was never agreed to. The changes must be reverted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we revert today's edits by the bot? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, revert. The longer this goes on, the bigger the clean-up later. — Maile (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if Kanashimi does not get to this today, then I will fix them tomorrow — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave the exiting categories untouched for now. Also, since I can't tell which templates I've moved, I'll have to recover them all. I checked the editors and it seems that only a few of them are {{WikiProject Military history}} related, so it might be better to recover them manually. Since I just changed the code yesterday, the issue should only be with the 200 edits or so.... In the future I'll add changed templates to the edit summary, which will help to solve the problem with touching special templates. I apologize for the inconvenience. Kanashimi (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 I think I've rolled back this batch of edits. Please let me know if there are any problems. Kanashimi (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Looks better now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly tagged articles

Would it be possible to remove {{Vital article}} from pages in Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention? I believe they are all misplaced. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which template or module generates this category? Kanashimi (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Vital article}}. I have added some detection of whether it is actually a vital article or not — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then daily regular execution should eliminate these problems after formal deployment. Kanashimi (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WPBS conversion seems to be going well. Time to ramp-up deployment a bit? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll move on to the next phase of the test. Kanashimi (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are cewbot's whitespace-only edits really necessary?

Most bots leave human-preferred whitespace between template parameters alone. The edit special:diff/1193725654 seems entirely gratuitous. –jacobolus (t) 09:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'll have the robot avoid this type of blank-only editing. Kanashimi (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the whitespace edits, but I agree that whitespace-only is a no-no — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion bots should not ever be adjusting the whitespace in non-rendering ways. Whitespace should be left however the most recent human editor put it (or if it's egregiously messed up, get a human to fix it, using a semi-automated tool if they really need). –jacobolus (t) 08:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biography ratings

Hi, looking at e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArsaces_I_of_Parthia&diff=1193677947&oldid=1038586692 - why did it leave the Biography project as a Stub? -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some similar issues in Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings (though I've already fixed a couple semi-manually). -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the report. This approach is actually in line with the design concept of the robot, as the robot cannot determine whether the conflicting quality ratings are appropriate or not. In addition, some of the parameters of WPBIO will be moved to WPBS, which is also the original design intention of the robot.

@MSGJ I think we need to write up descriptions for these categories, e.g. which module generates the categories and how they are resolved. Also we may need to write descriptions of this change in WPBS, so that when someone has a question about it, they know what's going on. Kanashimi (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanashimi Understood. I'll just fix those cases manually as I come across them in that case. For GA and FA status specifically though, perhaps that should override any non-opt-out quality rating, if that's already in the banner shell? Also, should RATER be modified to stop adding listas and living parameters by default to WPBIO going forward? -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings that are the same as {{WPBS}} will be moved to {{WPBS}}. If it is not the same as {{WPBS}}, it will be kept. So for those different ratings, it needs to be manually checked for appropriateness, as you are doing.

As for the rater, it might need to change. I'll make a suggestion to User:Evad37. Kanashimi (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was decided to be the best approach because a robot should not be overriding a human editor's decision, so these should really have human review — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot's edit summaries

Firstly, thank you for all the work you've done with Cewbot! Extremely minor question/nitpick: the edit summaries Cewbot leaves when maintaining {{WPBS}} currently include Remove the same ratings as {{WPBS}} and keep only the dissimilar ones from [WikiProject X]^[a]. I was wondering if this should read ...and keep only the ones dissimilar from [WikiProject X] - the current wording first made me think that it was referring to WikiProject X having the dissimilar rating itself, rather than it being the other (non-mentioned) WikiProject templates that had the different ratings. I might be misunderstanding something here though, please let me know if so. Equally, let me know if I've explained anything poorly.

Notes

^ where WikiProject X is a WikiProject that has had its rating removed/that has the same rating as the one in {{WPBS}}

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A smart kitten My English is not good, thanks for correcting it. What I want to say is that the robot will keep all the ratings that are different from {{WPBS}}. Would it be better if I change it to this? "Remove the same ratings as {{WPBS}} and keep different ratings of [WikiProject X]" Kanashimi (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I think that would be better, yes - if I'm understanding correctly, if the robot keeps a rating in (for example) WikiProject Astronomy because it's different from the rating that's been moved to {{WPBS}}, the edit summary would say Remove the same ratings as {{WPBS}} and keep different ratings in[/of] {{WikiProject Astronomy}}.

If you don't mind, while I'm here, can I also check if the class=List parameter for {{WikiProject Lists}} should have been removed in Special:Diff/1193730164, given that it's the same as the rating that was merged into {{WPBS}}?

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it probably could be removed. But in general, we are not touching quality assessments of projects that have opted out of PIQA. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ:

Thank you - the idea that WPLists may have opted out of PIQA didn't occur to me! It makes complete sense now why it wasn't merged. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll change the wording. Kanashimi (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I think Cewbot is currently stating the WikiProjects that have their ratings removed, rather than the one(s) that have a different rating kept. E.g. in this edit, the edit summary says it kept the different ratings in {{WikiProject Australia}} & {{WikiProject England}}, when those were the templates that didn’t have different ratings — the template with a different rating (that was kept) in that example was {{WikiProject Cricket}}. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

....having said that, though, I've also just come across this edit from later on, in which the edit summary is correct - {{WikiProject Belgium}} has a different rating that's kept, which the edit summary reflects. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not vital?

Why did the bot add |vital=yes - it doesn't seem to be a vital article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking on this. The parameters should be eliminated after regular operation. Kanashimi (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ We have to have a way of tracking vital articles that have been de-listed. Can we do with Module:Banner shell? Kanashimi (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, I can do this. I can use Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ Would it be possible for us to change the name and not put it together, e.g. "Articles not listed in the vital article list"? Kanashimi (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending to put different issues under different sortkeys, e.g. "N" = Not listed. Descriptions at the top of Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention. Is that okay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about making "Articles not listed in the vital article list" a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention? Kanashimi (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned earlier, I think we may end up having to write in each category the meaning of those categories and which template or module they are generated from. Kanashimi (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of number articles and a few others in the category. Is this fixed now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this bug is fixed. Kanashimi (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added template to the "normalise multiple issues" list

Hi! Just letting you know that I added a clean-up template - {{Cleanup red links}} - to User:Cewbot/log/20150916/configuration, since on this diff it removed {{multiple issues}} from the top of the article when both {{cleanup red links}} and {{more footnotes}} were in it. I'm not sure if I did it right since I don't know how the bot works, but hopefully I did it properly. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 01:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep watching to see if the robot works as you expect. Kanashimi (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majority rating

RE [1], in my original request I suggested: If assessments of projects differ, then add the majority rating to the banner shell and leave any different assessments on those banners. These will be manually reviewed by human editors. Would this be possible? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. But then we might lose the rating of {{VA}}. Kanashimi (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep that one in, we can review it manually. But it is easier to change 1 rather than 10! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean what should I do with {{VA}}'s rating? Kanashimi (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it in the template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I eliminate {{VA}}, then there's no place to put this rating. Kanashimi (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I see what you mean. If it's just vital that is different then it should be safe to drop that rating — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we add the rating of {{VA}}, there will be two different items with the highest count, what should we do? Kanashimi (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean if two classes are equally used? I suggested: If assessments of projects differ, but there is no majority rating, then add banner shell with empty |class= parameter. These will be tracked and reviewed manually. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:MSGJ: I've thought about it, and if that were the case I'd go with {{VA}}. I'll randomly choose one of these if there is no {{VA}}. The different ones will be kept. This way we can save a little bit of labor, and no information lose. --Kanashimi (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl For both of us to be able to produce the same result, there are some discussions on this page that you may want to know about. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always done this one (well, I don't worry about VA) and I re-implemented not removing the class from opted out WikiProjects, are there any other ones pertinent to me that I'm missing? — Qwerfjkl talk 22:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Qwerfjkl: If I remember correctly, I noticed an edit from Qwerfjkl (bot) earlier that didn't move listas= to the banner shell from a non-WPBIO template (either that, or it did move listas=, but didn't remove it from the wikiproject template - I can't remember which it was). Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 22:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A smart kitten, yes, there was a bug in my code that meant listas wasn't removed. I'm fairly sure I fixed all of the edits though. — Qwerfjkl talk 22:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe #Move listas? Kanashimi (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I sort of did that before, but I've got it working properly now (hopefully). — Qwerfjkl talk 21:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move listas

In this edit Cewbot did not move the listas parameter to the banner shell — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not {{WPBIO}}. I can move all listas. Do I need to do that? Kanashimi (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes please — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll change the code. Kanashimi (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ Only listas, or including other parameters? Which ones? Kanashimi (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a biography then none of the others (blp/living/blpo) will be there, so just listas I think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Kanashimi (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop flooding watchlists, please

Please slow it down. No hurry. E Eng 12:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You can check to see if there's anything we can do to improve. Kanashimi (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? What I'm saying is, do only a few of whatever it is you're doing each day. Don't do thousands at a time. E Eng 13:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. When I first responded, I suspended operations. You can check to see if there are any improvements to be made. Kanashimi (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly strongly agree with User:EEng. Slow it down or shut it down. I am incapable of finding anything else in my watchlist because 90% of it is Cewbot edits (still true in the hours since your response above). I don't want to hide bot edits altogether because I have been tracking some recent problems with a different bot. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I paused the execution. The bot is running with minor editing and bot flags set, so there's probably no way to hide it any more. Perhaps you could suggest what speed would be appropriate? Or is there a deadline after which it can be run? Right now {{VA}} is 37K left, and the main {{WPBS}} is probably... more than 4M? Also there will be User:Qwerfjkl's bot working on this job as well as me, so I think we're all going to have this problem. Kanashimi (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bot only works on the talk pages, perhaps you can filter it to remove the talk pages? Please report back if this works, thanks. Kanashimi (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, you can hide a specific bot's edits by following the instructions at WP:HIDEBOT. — Qwerfjkl talk 08:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or, instead of telling 10,000 other editors to do something, you can stop flooding watchlists. Now you've really pissed me off. What the fuck is the urgency of this fiddling with article assessments? You're interfering with editors who do useful work in order to regularize something absolutely nobody cares about. David, can you turn this thing off? E Eng 15:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot edits are hidden from the watchlist by default. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, and the people are complaining have deliberately overridden that setting. And then they complain about seeing bot edits?! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you failed to read the part of my comment where I pointed out that bot edits have been a problem? Letting bots do their bot thing unobserved has led to bot-created errors in articles that have persisted for years. The bot edits need to be watchlisted. Telling us to just stop watching what your bots are doing is not an acceptable solution. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to see bot edits then just turn off that setting in your preferences. That's what it's for after all. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, you two fucking geniuses, those of us who actually care about articles (i.e. not those who invest their time gnoming template whitespace) do want to see bot edits, because bot edits can and do often screw things up. That's why we turn off suppression of bot edits. That does not mean we should have our watchlists flooded by zillions of trivial edits all at once -- as {U|David Eppstein}} explained above: I don't want to hide bot edits altogether because I have been tracking some recent problems with a different bot. If you two did any actual article editing you'd know about subtleties like that.

The question again: why do are these edits so urgent that they need to be done all at once, instead over a few days or something? E Eng 20:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe cool it with the personal attacks? you two fucking geniuses... If you two did any actual article editing you'd know about subtleties like that... gee. This was done per consensus as part of the process to roll out universal project-independent article assessments, which applies to every single talk page on this wiki. They are doing it over a few days: this is going to take a while. If it was done a few each day it would take something approaching decades. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm guilty as charged (hopefully on both accounts, but I fear just the latter). — Qwerfjkl talk 21:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tbh as far as I'm concerned everyone on the technical side of the project is a genius, I've hosted a mediawiki instance for personal projects before and when i tried to figure out how a module worked i think my soul exited my body PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, looking at Cewbot's contributions, it seems to do roughly ~12 per minute when the task is running. If it ran non-stop it would finish in around a day or two. To do it in three days it would make one edit every 9 seconds. Obviously it's not being run non-stop, precisely to catch the kind of bugs you're worried about.
(This is assuming 30,000 edits, a number I now realise I may have pulled from thin air.) — Qwerfjkl talk 21:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I think we're gonna be running this for a few months. So we're gonna have to come up with a better plan. WP:HIDEBOT sounds good. Kanashimi (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was mentioned on ANI I've followed the link to dutifully pitch in my 2c of pointless driveby drivel (drivelby?). Why not just ignore the bot edits? EEng, I believe this may be what the zoomers call a "skill issue".

It's nobody's fault, specifically, that ALL WIKIPEDIA PAGES have ALL of their data, content, template invocations and metadata HARDCODED INTO PAGES. This is just a stupid and cursed way for a database to be set up -- it's not even really a database, it's just "several dozen million text files". But the people who find a way to make this system (or, as it were, awful non-system) work are geniuses, and their work is the only reason we don't still have..... well, go look at the source from a page from 2003 sometime, that's what it would look like today. I fact, look at the source of a page from 2001, you'd have us still using CamelCase LinkS because of watchlist spam. jp×g 🗯️ 22:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable piped text change

On Aggressive Inline (video game), the link Skateboard tricks#manual was used to bluelink "manuals". Cewbot changed the link, presumably correctly, to Skateboard tricks#Manuals. However, it also performed the exact same change on the piped text, taking it from "manuals" to "Manualss". See diff. While this is obviously a bug, is Cewbot even supposed to change the piped text at all? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 13:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your report. I have modified the algorithm to avoid this problem in the future. Kanashimi (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error

Not sure what caused it, but Cewbot left two banner shells on a page [2] — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it. Kanashimi (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] where WikiProject X is a WikiProject that has had its rating removed/that has the same rating as the one in {{WPBS}}

[a]

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 ::::Bot edits are hidden from the watchlist by default.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1704658836757:User_talkFTTCLNKanashimi" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#1d9ffc; color:white; padding:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Qwerfjkl</span>]][[User talk:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#79c0f2;color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">talk</span>]] 20:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)</span>
 :::::Yes, I know, and the people are complaining have deliberately overridden that setting. And then they complain about seeing bot edits?! &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
+::::::Perhaps you failed to read the part of my comment where I pointed out that bot edits have been a problem? Letting bots do their bot thing unobserved has led to bot-created errors in articles that have persisted for years. The bot edits need to be watchlisted. Telling us to just stop watching what your bots are doing is not an acceptable solution. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 23:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 :If you don't want to see bot edits then just turn off that setting in your preferences. That's what it's for after all. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 19:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 ::Excuse me, you two fucking geniuses, those of us who actually care about articles (i.e. not those who invest their time gnoming template whitespace) ''do'' want to see bot edits, because bot edits can and do often screw things up. That's why we turn off suppression of bot edits. That does not mean we should have our watchlists flooded by zillions of trivial edits all at once -- as {U|David Eppstein}} explained above: {{tq|I don't want to hide bot edits altogether because I have been tracking some recent problems with a different bot.}} If you two did any actual article editing you'd know about subtleties like that.{{pb}}The question again: why do are these edits so urgent that they need to be done all at once, instead over a few days or something? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)