Ping Sohom Datta for urgent discussions/responses

Is this bot approved for use by the Bot Approvals Group? I just want to make sure that all of the required prerequisites have been met so that this account isn't blocked by someone else. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah It isn't, I was testing out a few scripts that I had written to generate a report for all non-archived dead links in Featured articles (and another report for Good articles report that I'm currently running it seems like crawling those links will take approximately 14 years unfortunately, I should really parallelize that.). I'm not expecting the bot to start editing outside of it's userspace anytime soon, which should not require approval :) Sohom (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sohom Datta - Meh... *Shrugs*... See no crime here. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the bot was still operating in userspace under my supervision and did not to my knowledge make any disruptive edits (or was supposed to make any disruptive edits). Sohom (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see I guess a ping went through is that the issue here? Sohom (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and based on what you said on my Talk page, I've unblocked your bot. Have fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta: When Yapperbot used to prune the userlists, it would remove any user subpage from the list as inactive user. For instance, I have separate supages for FRS notification, and don't want the bot to dump them in my main talk page. Since, botop was inactive, I made peace with it, and began manually archiving the FRS notifications from the main talk page to FRS subpage. Now that you are taking over, can you modify the pruner to correctly identify the user from subpage? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:41, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I think fixed this case, next pruner will be the test! Sohom (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added my talk subpage to the list to test it: Special:Diff/1300032200. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did another run of pruner today, it looks like the code change works! Sohom (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since this bot was approved last month, shouldn't this text right before the signature be adjusted? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pushed a fix, should take effect soon (I think) Sohom (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

on a similar note, I assume the notice on the user page is outdated? Rexo (talk | contributions) 18:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated! Sohom (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sohom Datta! Hope you are doing well. I'm wondering if NppNotifier can use a different color triangle. I know, I know. Purple is usually the color for humorous notices; see e.g. {{Humor}}, WP:NMAILBOX, and {{Humorous essay}}. Can we use blue, which is usually the color of purely informational (i.e. "you did nothing wrong") notices? File:Ambox warning blue.svg would work nicely. Obvious this is UBN lowest priority :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! UBN resolved :) Sohom (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I got this request to comment at this Rfc (rfc_23C6615), where I had already responded seven days ago. It would be a nice enhancement to recognize this case, and: a) not message the prior respondent, and b) choose another user instead. This would have four advantages:

• alleviates the (very) minor annoyance of being summoned to a discussion where a user has already participated,
• reduces the likelihood of double-voting on an Rfc where a user has already voted (a real risk in my case, with my poor memory),
• ensures notification of the proper number of alerts about this Rfc to users who may actually respond, and
• keeps my 'bot-alert tally' down by one, so that the bot can still notify me about some other Rfc where I may yet respond.

It occurs to me that archival bots already examine and parse signatures in discussion sections (by date, naturally), so you might be able to steal some code there, and analyze by username instead, thus compiling a blacklist of previous respondents not to notify, while building your random list of candidates. This would be a nice enhancement. Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]