User talk:Σ/Archive/2015/March

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Σ. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Missing archive box

Why can't I see a archive box on Talk:Francoist Spain even thought there is a {{User:MiszaBot/config}} in the Wikitext below the WikiProject boxes? — AjaxSmack 06:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: Because {{User:MiszaBot/config}} is not designed to display anything. All it does is provide a list of settings for the archiving bot, such as how long to leave threads before they are archived. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure how that worked. I'll add {{Archives}} myself, then. — AjaxSmack 05:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Russo-Georgian War

The Talk page is overloaded with the old comments. Can someone configure an automated archival process of discussions older than 3 weeks? --UA Victory (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That is for Σ (talk · contribs) to decide. They don't log in every day, sometimes not editing for several weeks in a row, so I expect that they want the comments to remain visible long enough for them to have a chance of reading them. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There are even comments from 2013 visible. It should be archived automatically since it's overloaded. --UA Victory (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that you meant this talk page, because you gave no link. Now that I've read the section heading again, I now realise that you refer to Talk:Russo-Georgian War. What you need to do is add a {{User:MiszaBot/config}} somewhere before the first heading of that talk page, with appropriate parameters as described at the documentation for that template. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have read the instructions, but they were too technical for me, so I didn't take chance. There's already some old bot configured, however it does not work. Can you set up an automated archival for threads with no replies in a month?

It was basically correct, apart from one thing - when the page was moved last year by Cuchullain (talk · contribs), the |archive= parameter of the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} needed to be updated to match the new name, otherwise the bot refuses to archive the page. This edit should fix it. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the bot. However, the last three threads with no new replies were left behind. Is there any reason for this? If I move them to the archive manually, will there be any issue?

I didn't fix the bot, I fixed the talk page. It is true that some threads were left behind (to be precise: four, not three): that behaviour is correct. If you again look at the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} on that talk page, you will see that it has the |minthreadsleft=4 parameter, so at least four threads will be left on the page. As further threads are started, those older ones will be archived off - except for 38 minutes of video - people, houses, soldiers, equipment, destruction. which as it stands will remain indefinitely, since it has no timestamp. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Can the parameter be changed to zero? Or should be at least 1?

I found the revision responsible for undated thread. So it has to be moved manually to archive? --UA Victory (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't set |minthreadsleft= to zero (or even a very low value) without good reason. Is there anything actually wrong with having four threads left? There should be no need to manually archive any threads: if a timestamp (or a whole signature) is missing, add it - the {{subst:undated}} and {{subst:unsigned}} templates are available for this. But in this case, the user had signed their post once, but should really have signed it twice (once before the heading, which they did, and once at the end, which they didn't). When this happens, it's merely a case of copying the signature, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If some issue arises and is discussed, it's fixed quite soon and there's no point to be still on Talk page after a several months. --UA Victory (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for editor interaction analyzer and note about a feature/bug

Hi Sigma. Thanks so much for having created the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool. It is really really helpful sometimes. I came to inquire whether there is some date cutoff on the edits of two editors that will be compared, e.g. only during the last 2 years or what. I wondered about that because a report that I knew generated a lot of interactions between 2 editors no longer does. However, I tried searching in your Talk archives and found [this inquiry from editor Shrike, where it turned out putting in a start date made a big difference in results (from nothing to the results of this example call to the Editor Interaction Analyzer. You acknowledged maybe there is some kind of bug.

That workaround works like a charm for me...putting in 20090101 or 20060101 as a starting date yields a ton more interactions i was looking for, than if no starting date is entered. I have no complaints, am happy, not calling for you to do anything, it's working for me with that trick. Call it a bug or call it a feature of the program.... Again, thanks so much. cheers, --do ncr am 03:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Army Ranger Wing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Army Ranger Wing. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

user:

I dare say this is the first time I've been impressed with someone's userspace hax0ring... :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Archiving to wrong pages

Hi, your bot has been archiving talks from Wikipedia talk:User scripts to Archive 1 and Archive 2, but the last archive page is Archive 4. --V111P (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @V111P: Yes, that's because when Makyen (talk · contribs) set up the automatic archiving more than a year ago, they didn't take existing archives into account, and set |counter=1 instead of |counter=4 - so it's not a bot problem. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Then it looks like I have some work to do to clean up the problem. I'll report back when corrected.

Redrose64 (talk · contribs) thanks for mentioning my name so I was notified. — Makyen (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Normally when starting automatic archiving I have it start a new page, particularly if the current archive page is already long. Thus, I would have expected to have set |counter=5 to start a new page. Obviously, I missed it. This has been corrected.

In addition, all threads which were erroneously archived to Archive 1 and Archive 2 have been moved to the new archive page Archive 5 along with appropriate edit history comments to preserve attribution. — Makyen (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Makyen. --V111P (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Schedule

Resolved

Mlpearc (open channel) 07:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know the bots run frequency ? Once a day toward the evening is my guess. I'm asking because I set up a couple pages yesterday and either they were skipped or the bots down (maybe my set is wrong :P )? Mlpearc (open channel) 22:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)