User talk:Magioladitis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Invisible character edits[edit]

Resolved

Hi Magio, can you say what you did in this edit? The edit summary says: "Removed invisible unicode characters + other fixes, replaced: → (7) using AWB". All I can see is that you added white space, but I may have missed something. SarahSV (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV I replaced invisible non-breaking spaces with normal space. This affects how the page appears in small screens. They may show unexplained spaces between words and sentences. Can you please use different headers? All your comments have the same header. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The only thing I can see are a few instances of the British double space between sentences, but that isn't something that needs to be fixed, and so far as I can see you didn't fix them.
Can you say what changes you made and what " replaced: → (7)" refers to? I would really like to try to understand these edits. SarahSV (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV Yes, it's a non-breaking character there but it's invisible. I detect those via F&R. This is not general fixes. If you are trying to detect them via Firefox it won't work. You should use chrome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what F&R is. I would really appreciate it if you would explain what the edit achieved (i.e. how it changes things for the reader or in some other significant way), without me having to keep asking, and how the edit related to the edit summary (e.g. what the "other fixes" were). SarahSV (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV F&R stands for Find & Replace. The other fixes was a minor whitespace change at the bottom. The invisible characters can't show in the edit summary. I just use the built-in automated edit summary of Find and Replace to count the number of invisible characters removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Is that not a cosmetic-only edit? The reader sees no difference, and editors looking at the wikitext also see none, except for the addition of white space, unless using Chrome. SarahSV (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV The reader may see some difference when working in small screens. I replaced a character that was causing large spaces in various screens. On the wikitext part, the editor won't be possible to detect these characters and even accidentally move them in random places when editing since they are not visible. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The non-breaking spaces were wrong: it stops the line breaking at that point which can stop the text flowing properly. It actually does no need a small screen, it can happen at any width, though it will be more obvious with a narrow window or large typeface, such as on mobile. It was incorrect in another way: unicode NBSP characters should never be used as they are very hard to detect, and other editors noticing a problem might be unable to fix it. They should be replaced with the proper HTML markup or a template like {{nowrap}}, so other editors can see they are there and the reason for them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Magioladitis and JohnBlackburne, thank you for explaining. I can't see these things in my browser, so perhaps that's the problem. I see six bytes removed and the addition of white space at the end. SarahSV (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Historically, the rules relating to cosmetic-only editing have been interpreted rather narrowly to mean edits that make no cosmetic changes on any resolution sizes. Such an interpretation allows these edits. Such edits are especially important given how many people now use mobile browsers to browse Wikipedia. Such small resolution sizes would almost certainly get some pretty funky results when invisible non-breaking spaces were inserted in normal text where they shouldn't be. ~ Rob13Talk 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I can't see a thing, except for changing whitespaces. Magio, when you're done fixing all those, would you mind setting all the articles as done in Task 16 on CHECKWIKI? I've been going through them, and I don't want to go through 1,800+ pages to check which ones you have done. Thanks! Yoshi24517Chat Online 03:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Rob, thanks for the explanation. How do these invisible spaces come to be added in the first place, do you know? SarahSV (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Usually, it's the result of copy-paste from other sources. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Break[edit]

In the article about Andersons Black Rock you said you removed "invisible unicode characters" -- what does that mean? What are the invisible unicode characters? PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There are unicode characters that are not shown in the wikieditor. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) PraeceptorIP, see the section immediately above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
For other readers, the article in question is Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.Jonesey95 (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Well done with this. HOW MANY MORE TIMES do you need to be told to stop this pointless shit? I hope Arbcom come down on you like a ton of bricks and fast. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the mobile view of that edit, where it seems that one space was removed from a ref with a broken link (broken before and after the edit), and two spaces were added elsewhere. Rob, is this not the same problem as before? SarahSV (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin and Lugnuts: Those are not cosmetic-only. It looks like it to the naked eye, but it's not. The invisible characters being replaced with normal spaces force a browser to not break a line between the two words separated by the non-breaking space. This can cause revisions that look
like this, where the line break is super awkward. This is why we need these edits. We wouldn't want stuff showing up
like this in the mainspace. ~ Rob13Talk 16:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Rob, I've looked at several of the edits and haven't found one that made a difference, but perhaps other people can see it. What actual difference did this edit make to the reader, mobile or otherwise? SarahSV (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: You'd need to alter your resolution size to see it. In this case, it would only make a difference at very small resolutions, and even then not much of one because the words separated by a non-breaking space are small (and therefore the impact on spacing of the line break is small). Still, it's there. You will only see a difference if your browser is at a resolution where the non-breaking spaces fall around the area where a line break is. Note that the mobile browser viewed on a desktop isn't the same as the mobile browser viewed on a small device for these purposes; it's all about resolution size. The bigger issue (and the thing that makes fixes like this a net positive) are when multiple words are all connected by non-breaking spaces (leading to spacing like what I showed above) or two longer words are connected by a non-breaking space on a small mobile browser. ~ Rob13Talk 16:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Rob, what did this one do? I see 3 bytes removed from the External links section, but can't see a difference in edit or read mode.
Would it not make sense for someone other than Magio to make these edits, if they need to be made? This feels like an unhealthy situation (for Magio too), ongoing now for eight years I believe, and continuing even as the ArbCom case remains open. Rather than lots of people arguing about what a cosmetic-only edit is, it would make sense to ask Magio to steer clear of anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. Another bot operator could file a BRFA if these kinds of edits are deemed valuable. SarahSV (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: To better illustrate the problem of non-breaking spaces, I made this screenshot. I've marked the non-breaking spaces with red lines and the weird line breaks with circles. If the non-breaking spaces weren't there, the lines would more "naturally" reach the end of the screen before breaking to the next line. As for the edit you highlighted just above, I have no clue what that did; you'd need to ask the editor who made it. That's not the same fix. ~ Rob13Talk 16:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Rob, thanks, I can see the difference there, but not in others. Magioladitis, can you say what this edit did? It's the one I asked Rob about above. I see 3 bytes removed from the External links section but can't see any difference, including not on mobile. SarahSV (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Here is a screenshot showing the diff: File:Screenshot of diff showing nbsp fix.png. Note how the third line from the bottom is shorter on the left. This is due to the non-breaking space between '1995' and 'r.'. I had to narrow the page to see this, and then play with it until that bit of text was at the end of a line. So normally it will not make a difference and even when it does the effect is subtle. But the other issue is the character is to all effects invisible, so editors cannot detect and fix it even if they know there is a problem, and could easily copy the text reproducing the problem without realising. In all cases such characters should be removed or replaced with templates like {{nowrap}}, whichever is appropriate.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating this. John, I still can't see a meaningful difference in this screenshot. Why would it matter to any reader that "r" is on another line in that citation? AWB rule 4 says:
"Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further similar edits."
By "noticeable effect", we don't mean "squinting at a tiny screen on a certain browser through a magnifying glass". Also note: "If in doubt, or if other editors object ..." SarahSV (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
These edits have an effect on the rendered page, as shown in the screen shots, so they are not cosmetic. MOS says "The only invisible characters in the editable text should be spaces and tabs." – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The double space is not a problem since double spaces are ignored by Mediawiki. So, double space is not equal to normal space + non-breaking space. The edis affet the visual output. and the rendered outcome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Magio, would you please indent your responses so that we know who you're replying to? Also, if you could be clearer that would help a lot. If double spaces aren't a problem, why remove them, or did you mean something else? SarahSV (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
SarahSV I don't remove double spaces. The one space was a nbsp. If you want to check this use Chrome. When trying to copy this to univode converter via Firefox it won't work because Firefox prohobots editors from copying non-breakinfg spaces from the diff window. At least in the version I use. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Magio, which edit are we discussing here? SarahSV (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The one I reported I assume... -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what that is. Please tell me which edit you were referring to when you wrote "The one space was a nbsp." You invited me to check it, but I don't know where it is. SarahSV (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Here. I use this tool to detect those. I have FF v. 51 and Chrome v.56. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. John explained that one above. Can you say what difference this edit made? Three bytes were removed from the External links section but I can't see any difference, including not on mobile. SarahSV (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
There was an invisible unicode character, after the ')', before the '}}'. That was invisible to me, though it could be visible in some cases, most likely showing up as an unknown char with older browsers unused to unicode. You could also detect it editing, e.g. as you move a cursor with the right-left buttons it seems to stop there. As I explained earlier, and as the guideline says, such characters are a bad idea and should be removed.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, John, I was able to see it using the tool M posted above. It appears that it said: {{commons category|U.S. ProVictoria Pallavolo Monza (women's volleyball)&#x200E}} Does removing that make a difference to any reader?
This edit removed just one byte. Here is the mobile view, which shows M removed a space between "the" and "United States agency". SarahSV (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It was an invisible non-breaking space. As oyu can I see I did not remove, I replace a space with another. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Which browser do you use? As you may see WPCleaner detects those characters too. It's not only my customised AWB settings that do it.-- Magioladitis (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was not a space. It was U+00A0, an invisible non-breaking space, which you can see if you paste the wikitext of the original page into http://r12a.github.io/apps/conversion/ and click "Convert". It is not clear to me why you keep asking the same question, when it has been explained many times above that these edits are valid. You are getting close to WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory, which is ironic on this user talk pages, and which could be viewed as disruptive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Magio, I've looked at them with different browsers, but can't see them unless I go to the mobile site or use the tool you linked to. But my question is: what difference do these edits (this one, for example) make to the reader? That is, in what circumstances would a reader notice a difference, and what would that difference be?
Also, would it not be more appropriate to use a bot and have the task approved? That way, people can decide whether the edits need to be made and can advise accordingly. SarahSV (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In the Wade Warren edit that you linked above, open both versions and shrink your window's horizontal size. In the previous version, you will see that "the" and "United" wrap to the next line together when the window gets small enough. In the fixed version, "the" stays on the previous line and "United" wraps to the next line. That is the rendering difference, which has been explained to you above with screen shots and now with prose. Bot approval is not relevant to these edits. They are valid per MOS and are not cosmetic edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
But so what? I keep asking what difference it would make to a reader, by which I mean what is the benefit. How do these edits help the reader? In what circumstances would a reader even notice? I'd appreciate it if Magioladitis would reply to the question I've asked three times about this edit (mobile view) to Unione Sportiva ProVictoria Pallavolo Monza:
{{commons category|U.S. ProVictoria Pallavolo Monza (women's volleyball)&#x200E}}
How does removing &#x200E help a reader? SarahSV (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It removed a left-to-right mark in this case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The proper forum for this question about the benefits of a MOS-recommended edit is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. MOS is a consensus-based guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yobot is causing some punctuation errors[edit]

In recent edits such as this one, Yobot has been adding unnecessary commas next to reference tags. Is it possible to fix this error? Jarble (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Jarble This edit was done in 2015... -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This error still appears in a few thousand articles, so it should be automatically repaired by a bot, if possible. Jarble (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Jarble How ca we determine which mark is the correct one? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The search results linked above show many valid instances of ".," that should not be modified. You would need to filter out "et al.," and "[A-Z].," and "etc.," and "St.," and "Ave.," and "e.g.," and "i.e.," and "Inc.," and more like those before starting work on the remaining errors. After that, WP:CONTEXTBOT would apply, since there will always be more false positives and there is no way for a bot to know whether a period or a comma is the correct punctuation mark to remove.
All of that said, there are a lot of errors there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jonesey and Magioladitis: All we need to do is check the revision history and automatically remove the extra commas that were added by Yobot. I still don't know if this bug has been corrected yet. Jarble (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Jarble there were not added by Yobot. There were there but after the ref tag. Yobot moved them in front. So in fact, there was a mistake before Yobot arrived. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

See also that in the list you provided there are things like the U.S., which is not a mistake. There are 7,000 pages. I can even fix everything manually. No bots. Only bare hands.

In this case we needed neither of the two! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Some people are welcome to comment on my talk page[edit]

Some people are welcome to comment on my talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope I'm not unwelcome, then. Jarble (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Jarble you are ofcourse welcome! I wish we had more wikignomes around. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There are some very specific people I have in mind about that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Social[edit]

Requesting for your feedback on my proposal: Wiki Loves Social. DiptanshuTalk 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a look. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA (50)[edit]

Your BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 50, has been approved for initial trial. — xaosflux Talk 00:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 50 has been approved, please see closing notes regarding adding a link to edit summaries for your go-live. — xaosflux Talk 16:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Thanks. WPCleaner does not allow customised Edit summaries. I'll see what I can do. WPCleaner has differences of AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I've adjusted the BRFA closing note - if it is possible or become possible it would be a benefit to other editors in the future. I know you have a lot going on, but I also think you should clean up the main User:Yobot page when you can - make it clearer which tasks are expected to be running and not. I know you have a LOT of tasks so this isn't a quick edit. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 16:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux I have left a note that "All tasks in these setion are inactive." Should I write something more? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is the "best" way - and this discussion is not intended to be any sort of requirement for anything. Think of that page from the point of view of a more novice editor that comes across Yobot (could be in history or current edits) who goes to see "What is this Yobot thing anyway?" Bots with huge task lists (c.f. User:AnomieBOT) can be a bit daunting for other editors to understand. Sorry if this isn't very helpful - was just a passing suggestion. — xaosflux Talk 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux I have a history of bad user pages. My user page is no better. It's a collection of random things. I'll try to work it out. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux I provide(d) FAQ and edit notices. Still most of the reports skipped these parts anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

AWB edits[edit]

Per User talk:Evad37/Watchlist-hideAWB.js now editors can hide AWB edits from their waatchlists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edit to the PD talk page[edit]

That was inappropriate and I've removed it. You should have emailed us with a specific complaint. If the edit in mind is the one I assume it was, it was a request made to do with the PD. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller OK. I contacted the person in question personally too. Thanks for the remove. I don't know how to handle this. Trying to figure out.It's the first time I run into a similar situation. I beg for help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

About page "Inscription of Parthian imperial power"[edit]

I linked the page from other pages. Can the "orphan" tag be removed? If it is the case, can you please do that?

Thanks! --Starnutoditopo (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

New page for notable folklorist D.K. Wilgus?[edit]

http://www.folklib.net/index/bibliog/library_a.shtml

http://www.folklib.net/index/discog/bibliog15.shtml#vx

http://www.folklib.net/graphics/book/folklib_bibliog_vx-p331.gif

http://www.folklib.net/graphics/book/folklib_bibliog_vx-p332.gif

Thank you for not deleting the D.K. Wilgus biography links I found. I also scanned his printed biography above. Since 2005, using my personal collection of over 600 music reference books I have tried as an editor to correct and or add small details as I find them. I don't have the writing skills to create a new page from scratch. I hope that someone with those skills can use the three on-line biographies and the above scans as "reliable sources" and create a needed page for the notable folklorist D.K. Wilgus. Thank you. Doug (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Doug Henkle 3:25 pm CST, 26 February 2017 - henkle@pobox.com (preferred method of contact)

After reliable sources like the above are found for a topic, how do new pages get assigned to Wikipedia's professional editors? Doug Henkle —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Additional cosmetic edits[edit]

Please avoid edits such as [1]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary piping. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The piping is not an error, but regardless whether it is necessary or not, it is the sort of thing that should not be changed in a stand-alone edit. It seems unfortunate to me that an arbcom decision could be necessary to prevent this sort of editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Goddamn it, Magioladitis. You've got a fucking arbcom case after you for this shit. What don't you get about DON'T DO COSMETIC EDITS? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. I stop the #64 via WPCleaner too. I wonder where this stops. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb WP:NOPIPEDLINK reads: "Never use piped links to convert the first letter to lower case". -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That still doesn't make the edit, on its own, fly by WP:COSMETICBOT or WP:NOTBROKEN. Likewise Wikipedia:Piped link outline best practices, not required practices. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Since Carl wants no bot edits to contain general fixes, how is supposed this edit to be done exactly? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Carl doesn't have monopoly on consensus, nor the ability to restrict bots from doing genfixes when they have consensus to do so (not that I agree that this is what Carl expressed as his desired outcome above). However, consider the possibility that this is maybe not an edit that needs to/should be done. Or that if it's to be done, that is should only be done as part of a substantial edit per WP:COSMETICBOT, and that such a bot would would be subject to BRFA, consensus, etc, and that bypassing these processes can get you blocked per WP:MEATBOT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb So ANY bot that does this edit as sole edit should stop? Even if there are BRFAs that support their actions? Menobot for example? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Where's Menobot's BRFA for that? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Btw, Do you see that I was doing less than 1 edit per minute, right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MenoBot 4. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at MenoBot's edits, I don't see it doing the same ones you've been asked to stop doing. So maybe it disabled #64, or maybe it did/does it in a better way (e.g. by using clear edit summaries and a bot flag, or only when there's a larger more substantial edit to be made). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
And, as an aside, I'll point out that neither Meno25, nor his bot, are currently at ARBCOM for longstanding issues of (perceived, or real) WP:COSMETICBOT, WP:MEATBOT, or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT violations. You are. Regardless of whether it's fair or not, that invites a greater level of scrutiny. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have given all the links before. Still trying to understand if this is some consensus that changed probably without telling to the bot owners. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Meno used error 17 as test edits. They did not mention anything on doing the edits "only when there's a larger more substantial edit to be made". I take it that these edits are OK then. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Iff you have the BRFA and consensus for it. Because right now I don't see the consensus for #64 to be done on its own by either WP:MEATBOTs or normal bots. And before you ask, yes this would apply to other bots too, not just your account or your bots. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Headbomb What you say contradicts the approved task of 3 bots (2 now after my tasks were revoked i order to be re-approved). So, I am not sure I believe you to be honest. I have read some many contradicting things all this time... -- Magioladitis (talk)
Looking at Menobot 4's trial, it's clear that #64 hasn't been tested properly. I consider that a failure of BAG to do a proper BRFA review, and I've updated our new WP:BAGG guide accordingly. Likewise, the issue of #64 being a cosmetic issue has been raised at other bots before User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 50#Another_edit. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My edit summary was perfect clear because I used WPCleaner. So I did ONLY and EXACTLY was was written in the edit summary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb I am happy that after a month and with the ArbCom almost closed you decide to open the real can of worms here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We all three were/are doing general fixes in selected lists. This worked for 7 years or more. Now you make it sound that were re doing something illegal. Cool. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I proposed that over 4 weeks ago and specifically asked you to comment on it and become part of the solution. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Workshop#Proposal_by_User:Headbomb (points #4 an #5). So drop the accusations of wanting witch hunts. You're not doing something illegal, but you (referring to checkwiki bot ops) may be doing things that run against consensus despite having a BRFA for it. I even laid the blame on BAG for not conducting proper reviews, I worked to clarify the policy on cosmetic edits User:Anomie/Sandbox2, took the lead on revamping WP:BOTISSUE, etc. Cosmetic edits are contentious, and it's not just you that's going to be affected by the fallout of the ARBCOM case.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb I would be more than happy if we work a community solution. Right now everything is done under the threat of blocking and restricting because you assume that your proposal have clear consensus. My bot approvals and the other bot approvals, the CHECKWIKI project all look like something the community overlooked. This is not the ground of a fair discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb I don't say that you have bad intentions. I now that you are working for a clear solution. Sorry for the with hunt expression. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb My problem is that till now the discussion is not done centralised. I said that before the Arbom started. This tactic favors the ones who complain. The benefits of bots fixing syntax have not been supported because I think the supporters did not have the chance to do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Your proposal for doing things "in addition to other tasks" is something not many people support as far as I understand. There are people complaining that these edits are done anyway. Moreover, if we strip out Yobot, no bot really remains to do things "in addition to other tasks". The previous bot was SmackBot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb I guess you don't like WP:CHECKWIKI as a project that helps fixing syntax things... -- 21:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Error 64 has consensus to be done as sole edit per instructions and WP:CHECKWIKI till it is decided otherwise. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth, it's making you no friends here. As for #64, see WP:SILENCE. Silence has been broken, not only here, but in many other places, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. The onus is on the community to adjust accordingly, not to wikilawyer "BUT THIS PAGE SAYS X". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb but where is the discussion on the specific CHECKWIKI errors? Where have you been sine 2008 where the project started? It's been 9 years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb Where and is this community discussion going to happen anyway? I am confused. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb I'll take a 10 minute wikibreak because I may be not reading well what you are writing. I'll be back in 10 minutes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOLD/WP:NOTFINISHED. If none exists, start one. You're familiar with CHECKWIKI/AWB development, so you probably know what place is best to hold such a discussion on points #4/#5. I suspect WP:CHECKWIKI would be the natural place to hold it, but in involves two projects, and possibly several phabricator tickets. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)