Active discussions

request that all edits identify bot operatorEdit

All mass message activities should identify the person doing the mass messaging.

Why does this not happen already? Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I added rules to address this at special:diff/18670748/18678213. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Huh? Any MassMessage does specify who triggered it. What you are looking for is located in the end of every message in an HTML comment. --Base (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Base: I see. You are correct, and thanks for explaining.
How would you feel about requiring that the sender's identity be in the body of the message to make it more obvious? The norm in Wikimedia projects is for the person making a talk page post to sign it. Are you aware of any discussion or rationale for treating MassMessage posts differently? Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Evidently I complained about this in 2014. From the archives:
Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
[editconflict] Well, it is a bit complicated. Often messages are on behalf of some organising committee and sender themselves are not important as such. Then there are newsletters where sender's identity is even less important. It does make sense though in some abstract general sense, though for me that comment was always enough if I basically had to look up who is to blame. I am not aware of such discussion, and I think that the messages should be treated just as though they were done manually. Again though rules vary with this regard. I know that on ruwiki for instance it is explicitly allowed in rules to use rollback against unwelcome invitations and other mass messages (the rule predates MassMessage tool unless I am mistaken). Basically looking through this page afresh it looks that is already contains a good deal of best practices, including prompt to include signature. --Base (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for mass message delivery ASAPEdit

Hi, can someone please deliver message to WLE French photographers on Commons?

Here are the details

Thanks for your assistance   CC @VIGNERON: @Jean-Frédéric:

Sarah Krichen WMFr (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done This was Done on 9 May by Jean-Frédéric. Quiddity (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Is MassMessage ever used for delivering identical content to the same page multiple times?Edit

TLDR: Do you know of any uses for MassMessage, where it delivers identical content to the same page? E.g. content similar to a user-warning template, where everything might be the same except the timestamp.

I ask because we're trying to determine whether there would be any problems with a proposed solution (using "De-duplication") for the rare bug where MassMessage can post the same message to the same page multiple times due to JobQueue issues (see tech details in phab:T232379#5480718). I.e. It would make it impossible to send exactly the same message to the same page regardless of timing. Would that cause a problem on any wiki that you know of? We think not, but want to be more certain. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Do not spam again and againEdit

Hi MassMessage,

Please do not spam my talk page and remove my user name from your spam list.

  • 2018 you spammed [1] → I removed my user name from your spam list [2] → I removed your spam [3]
  • 2019 you spammed again [4] → I removed your spam [5] and again → [6] → I removed your spam [7]

I have reduced my editing because of harassment and messing up my talk page. Some sockpuppets are now blocked. [8] [9] If you have to say something about my editing in Wikipedia or you have questions then personal (no mass messages) contacting is absolutely acceptable. For important mass messages Kahvihuone (uutiset) is right place to reach many editors.

Sincerely, ---raid5 (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC) edit: added earlier 2019 wiki links ---raid5 (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello -raid5, thank you for letting me know! You will not receive a talk page message about this survey again. --RMaung (WMF) (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Rebecca Maung and thank you for replying. ---raid5 (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
User:RMaung (WMF) or whoelse is responsible of this spamming. Other problem is that the people who send these surveys don't read any replys to them. Here someone said they already filled the survey and they still got the reminder message. You should stop spamming users on their talk pages, use instead Notifications or some other way. Stryn (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello Stryn! We absolutely do read the responses to this survey! However, as the survey is completed anonymously, we do not know who has and has not completed it unless they let us know. Once we are told that someone has already taken the survey or wishes not to receive messages about it, we can take them off our list! I will make sure you receive no further messages about taking this survey. --RMaung (WMF) (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Raid5: @Stryn: see User:MediaWiki message delivery: «If you do not wish to receive any messages, add your user talk page to Category:Opted-out of message delivery». For it should be w:sv:Category:Användare som valt bort leverans av massmeddelanden. For it should be w:fi:Category:Eivät halua joukkoviestejä Ratte (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not against mass messages but against sending same mass message (aka reminders) many times by purpose. Stryn (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I have already opted-out: [10] For example some bad-mannered applications collect user statistics and user must remember opt-out every time that function. If I want take part in then I opt-in – not otherwise. I am against mass messages and I recommend Kahvihuone (uutiset) (my watchlist). It is more simple, less traffic and mess. Those news can translated once and a mission is done. Editors can comment it and make questions. ---raid5 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem with a queueEdit

Hi, i have sent a mass message after some test but it never arrived, the queue in the stats was 0. After few minutes I assumed it might have been a bug, nothing arrived. Now I see that both mass messages are listed. Do you have any advice?--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I would remove one of them from a queue but the queue is at zero, as far as I can check. And I need to send this message, I am already late of many weeks and last time I had to copy and paste them one by one in the talk pages. This year I finally created a list and... nothing.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I made a test and I know that single message arrive, so if nothing occurs since we need this message I will separate the list in smaller lists and try again.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I am using smaller lists now, unfortunately I made a typo in some messages but you get distracted if you have to make your work in such a fragmented way. What was the original problem? is there a limit per message?--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

ok I am completing the sending with smaller lists. If I might express a comment, if this is some sort of filter because you are worried that somebody too many poor messages, it actually forces me to do so many additional passage that the chace to make mistakes increases, as occured with my first and second step.

You shouldn't limit the overall number of recipents... instead if the threshold is higher put an additional check by a second user or reduce the number of sent messages per minute, so they are processed much slower... this can actually achive the result more efficiently. Also, I don't understand why there is no clear warning or information, it all appearead as sent considering certain aspects (queue and final message in the interface).--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's related to the delivery problems you experienced, but I see in the logs for one of your December 2019 delivery that your list had a few non-existing usernames. Target lists need continuous maintenance (one more reason I agree it's better if they don't need to be split by arbitrary criteria). Nemo 08:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Return to "MassMessage" page.