This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
I am getting a bit frustrated (not that you'd care) because my pic is not copyrighted. It has been uploaded onto my PERSONAL Page, and has not been shown as comic canon. In fact, I made note of that on my PERSONAL page, and as such, I would like to have my picture restored. This seems ludicrous that I would be accused of presenting a counterfeit picture ( or whatever the reason you deleted the picture). Please clarify youir intentions, and help me find out how to get copyright info on a pic with NO COPYRIGHT.
Oops, thanks. Shit happens, I guess. The threshold is 3 "bad moves" in a short time span - very hard to trigger unintentionally - I think it's the first time it happened. Миша1310:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok - it came up - not the first time, really - whatever - just please don't insult my bots with suggestions along the lines of 100 tabs in my browser or something. Thanks & Cheers, Миша1321:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not trying to insult anyone or anything, and certainly not anyone who has the skill and patience to code up a useful piece of operations. The "100 tabs" was a wry reference to other discussions I've seen where people question high edit-rates (ANI I think, I can dig those up if you wish). I've notified you here because I think this is a serious discussion as to how tools are used, and what exactly constitutes "bot edits". No offence intended, apologies if any perceived, and give your bots an extra 10 volts for me. Bots are extremely useful and need to be here, for sure, I just see a cloud of confusion around the issue. Skoal! Franamax (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense perceived; in fact, I was referring to the numerous discussions where people (like Pascal.Tesson) repeatedly play "surprised" and "outraged" to have found out operating adminbots. Seriously, it's been said and admitted so many times that the only reason I haven't yet painted a big "THIS USER IS RUNNING ADMINBOTS ZOMG" with blinkenlichten on my userpage is because it would deface it. Some of my sysop bots have been running for as long as over 1.5 years (as that joke userpage reminds me) without issues worth noting and I have yet to see a reasoning that would compel me to change the status quo. Миша1322:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "surprised and outraged" part might apply to eight-month-old's like me who are still struggling to encompass the full culture of the site. It's somewhat depressing to put all the work in of learning, and still be met with "hah - newbie, that's not how we do things". Unwritten rules are great, but it's also nice to be able to find some place where they're written. It's also somewhat disconcerting to watch a botop/BAGer who throws the f-bomb freely and responds to genuine concerns with "stop lying" and "removed vandalism" come out with a mystifying "shh, hunting wabbits" remark. (Quotes are paraphrased, but guess who?).
Perhaps it would well behoove you, to the benefit of the project, to make just such an adminbot statement on your userpage (sans blinking lights) to make all and sundry aware of the status quo. Regards. Franamax (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
haha, srs tho - are you saying I and everyone else who dares to ask questions should just go away and leave the big boys alone? Franamax (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that whoever has questions is welcome to ask them here. I openly admit to operate an adminbot and my bots are opensourced - checks out as transparent to me. If I didn't get any "official" approval (with RfA, bells and whistles), it is because the expectations at this moment are that the bot has a 0% error rate which: a) is impossible and b) would seriously compromise the bot's efficiency if I were to go into lenghts of writing such a code that everyone would agree it has said 0% error rate (but then again, it wouldn't, since it's impossible). Instead I settle down for a very low error margin and continue along my merry way. Миша1310:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I like this reasonable-questions / reasonable-answers approach with not a policy TLA or swear-word in sight :) I think I found some of your source at archivebot.py. Can you point me now to what code you run with admin privilege? Python is something I need to learn anyway, I need to get that 19th language under my belt ;) Franamax (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx and cool stuff, I'll add fisheye to my list of "environments" eventually. Now I just need a hacksaw to figure out your code, but that's my problem, not yours. It actually looks pretty self-documenting, I see you don't use variable names a, aa, aaa1, miszafixbug, and so forth. I'll reiterate here that the maximum possible open-ness you can provide is going to be best, such as a brief statement somewhere outlining what tools you use, why you use them, where they can be inspected, what they do, etc. I'm not asking that for myself, I know how to read code, but there are a lot of less-technical people around here who do have genuine concerns, of the non-Skynet variety. Anything you can do to further the goal of transparency is most appreciated. Thread is resolved as far as I'm concerned, thanks for your help! Franamax (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty odd. The logs show that the bot was struggling against an error which the pywikipedia framework interpreted as technical problems with the site (but that wasn't true as the Wikipedia was otherwise accessible). Can't really do anything about it but also this seems to be a random (and irreproducible) error. Thanks for the info though. Миша1317:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bot adding blank lines
Hi Misza, when your bot archives my page, it adds blank lines between the header titles and the body of the section. I don't want those lines. Is there a parameter I can set to tell it to leave what it's not archiving alone and not put in the blank lines? AletaSing20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. They are placed there due to the nature of the algorithm - if decomposes the entire page into threads (as python objects), separating their titles from contents. Then, some threads are moved to the archives while the rest is again composed into a complete page. At this point, they get standarized - and the standard (according to what the "new section" button produces) is that the title is separated by single spaces from the surrounding == header markers == as well as with an empty line from the thread's contents. This also makes the code of the entire page more readable - a title which is glued to the thread's text is easy to miss when scrolling at a fast pace. This is not a specifically by-design-intended behavior but rather a (useful in my opinion) side effect. Миша1321:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, thanks: I'd still rather not have them, but I appreciate the explanation! Maybe I'm just weird, but I like the headers connected to the contents. Oh well... :) AletaSing21:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I only made the static .png version by scanning an old photo. The animated .gif (as well as some of the Wikipedia banner ads) is provided courtesy of User:Gurch - maybe you could ask him about whatever magic tools he uses. I've never had the patience nor skills to produce animated images. Миша1322:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Talk:Omega-3 fatty acid, I have it set to archive posts after 30 days. Most of them have been archived successfully, but just a few random ones (from November 2007, January 2008, and March 2008) have been left behind. Any idea what's causing this? —Werson (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, the pywikipedia framework is raising an edit conflict error when trying to save a page that was deleted (in your case, the 9th archive). If you recreate it (even a blank one), it should continue normally. Миша1317:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the unblock. I hope it'll be safe for me to include the permanent link in a few more page moves as there a few more to do. (I don't usually include URLs.) What really surprised me was the immediate indefinite nature of the block, i.e. no warnings or build-up to an indefinite block. Perhaps something to factor into future block setups?
Also, since this block was accidental, can it be removed from my record? (I lost sight of the page where I can check whether or not it has.) Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with external links is that we have a notorious vandal going around mass-moving pages and using external links to shock sites in the summary. It is so annoying and tedious to clean up after that I have decided to write a bot that detects such moves and blocks automatically after a few "transgressions". Seems that blacklisting URLs globally (as it was proposed a while back) wasn't a good idea. I'll make the patterns address-specific.
Regarding removal of the block log entry, it's not generally possible (save bugging the developers about it), but it doesn't really matter either if it was a mistake and immediately reverted (it is not considered a stain or anything). Миша1313:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. It was the first time I'd included an URL rather than a wikilink, as it was a link to a talk page. Should I ever want to do something like that again, it'll be simpler to use a wikilink anyway and later look in an archive if necessary. And, so long as the record shows the block was accidental and/or unintended consequence, I'm happy. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The da Vinci Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for the helpful scripts you've created and other technical work around Wiki. Keep up the great work. ~AH1(TCU)00:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A big thankyou
The Special Barnstar
For the invaluable work which your bot does in archiving talk pages. This a repetitive task which I suspect is fully automated by now, but that doesn't reduce it's importance in keeping talk pages useable while retaining well-organised archives. I didn't fully realise just how important this was until Werdnabot's demise left my talk page to grow into an unuseable monster, and it was rescued by your bot. Thank you for running this very important bot, which plays a huge role in facilitating collaboration between editors. —BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My picture
Why did you delete my picture? It wasn't being used anywhere and I didn't know how to attach to my user page so I just created it the normal way. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but all images on Wikipedia need a proper copyright tag along with source information (your image was missing that and was deleted). Furthermore, any non-free images (yours looks like one, being a logo) can only be used in articles (and not on userpages) and if they're not used, they're deleted. Миша1315:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for deleting that image. I uploaded it and I didn't know how to delete it. It came out wrong. It was suppose to be bigger. Thanks!--WillC (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please undelete an image
Hi, the image Image:Kennelley.jpg was deleted as an unused non-free image not long ago. It turns out it was actually in use, but wasn't linking properly to the related article due to someone playing around with some template parameters and breaking it. Can you please undelete? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At User_talk:AlasdairGreen27 I have set up the code as per your instructions (as far as I can tell successfully). Thanks for that. The bot has archived successfully. The only thing is that the bot seems to have put old threads into two archives, with some duplication. It's not urgent, but when you've got a few minutes over a cup of coffee could you have a look at what I've done wrong? Something, obviously ;-). I think I need just one archive just now. Many thanks once again, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that obvious? You set up the bot to archive to archive #2, it did, then you reverted it, but only on your talk page - the bot didn't magically revert itself in the archive (why would it?). Then you changed the counter to 1, it archived again - that's why you have the same content in two archives. No mystery. Just blank archive #2, I suppose... Миша1319:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sorry, but, like many such things around WP, the instructions were not the most user friendly I've ever come across, to say the least. I reverted it because it didn't work - my fault, I'm sure, but what can you do? No archive was created yesterday, so I'd obviously done something wrong, so I reverted and tried again today. I'll blank archive 2. To be frank, I found the instructions so incomprehensible that yesterday I copy-pasted what another user had done on his user talk page. That's why there's an archive 2, I guess.
I'd suggest entirely deleting your instructions. They make no sense. I'd (kindly) advise you replace them with colour coded instructions that say 'to start a new archive for your talk page, paste the following into your user talk page, entering your user talk page name over the green text and leaving everything else intact'.
LUCPOL zaczął bezpodstawnym atakiem, cytuję: "że twój chory polski nacjonalizm nie będzie tolerowany nigdzie na Wikipedii." za to iż ośmieliłem się napisać że Ślązaków jest 173, 000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.128.119 (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote it in Polish, but I do not know why I should be bullied without any reason here... How can I officially reprot this??? Użytkownik LUCPOL agresywnie zaatakował mnie bez żadnej podstawy, obraził i zaczął grozić za to iż w temacie Silesian language napisałem, iż liczba osób o narodowości Śląskiej wynosi 173,000 wg polskiego spisu, a nie 0,2 miliony jak chce tego LUCPOL. Osobnik ten zrewertował moją edycję, po czym wystosował pod moim adresem agresywny i obraźliwy tekst 29 kwietnia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.128.119 (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cześć. Piotrus mi Ciebie polecił bo jesteś neutralnym adminem umiejącym zarówno język angielski i język polski (co w tej sprawie jest bardzo ważne). Chodzi o to, że mam obecnie konflikt z IPkiem. Ten IP zaatakował mnie dotkliwie na pl.Wikipedii oraz wprowadzał polskocentryczny POV, został zrewertowany przez użytkowników i adminów oraz zablokowany przez administratorów. Następnie przyszedł na en.Wikipedię. Ja mu wprost na dyskusji napisałem że jego skrajne polskocentryczne POV będzie rewertowane bo to jest Wikipedia. Nie napisałem mu tego w sposób miły, ale nie można tego ode mnie wymagać po czytaniu takich jego ataków na moją osobę. On zaczął następnie spamować do innych użytkowników oraz pisał prawdziwe ataki osobiste (cytaty oraz linki w jego dyskusji, proponuję dogłębnie przeanalizować jego dyskusję jest tam wszystko napisane), tu podam kilka przykładów: "to znaczy, że jesteś zwyczajnym śmieciem...", "nie ma miejsca dla takich idiotów jak Ty", "Twoje brednie...", "Twoje schizofreniczne..." "Twoje chore majaki", "chore, pomylone neo-nazistwoskie teorie", "A tak na marginesie świrze", Gdzie Ty widzisz "polski nacjonalizm" nazisto", "Wszystko się zgadza nazistowski świrze". Jego nie miłe teksty mogę przełknąć, WikiLove nie jest zasadą i nie upoważnia do blokady, ale takie ataki osobiste już łamią zasadę Wikipedii i to jedną z głównych. Nic sobie z tego nie zrobił i dokonał następnego ataku osobistego. LUCPOL (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Odłóżmy może polską wiki i to co tam miało miejsce na bok. Faktem jest, iż Lucpol został słusznie usunięty z polskiej wikipedii przez administratorów z powodu swojej otwartej nienawiści do Polaków oraz wielokrotnych prób zastraszania i ciągle ponawianych ataków na innych użytkowników. (Odylen)
Zostałem usunięty z polskiej Wikipedii z powodu otwartej nienawiści do Polaków? Co takiego? Kolejny twój wymysł. LUCPOL (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Na ang wiki, LUCPOL bezpodstawnie zaatakował mnie i zrewertował moją edycję "Silesian language" mimo iż była zgodna z prawdą (oficjalna liczba osób narodowości śląskiej to 173,000 a nie 200 000. LUCPOL postanowił "zemścić" się na mnie za to, iż nie podzielałem jego opinii na polskiej wiki. Zrobił to w sposób bezpodstawny gdyż nieczym nie zasłużyłem sobie na ten atak, a już na pewno nie zasłużyłem sobie moją działalnością na ang wiki. Poza tym wiki to nie miejsce na załatwianie osobostych "porachunków". Faktem jest, iż zostałem 28 bądź 29 kwietnia zaatakowany i obrażony bez żadnej podstawy. Padłem ofiarą osobistej zemsty. Moje edycje również zostały zrewerotwane bez podania oficjalnego powodu. Niezależnie od tego jak później zareagowałem to LUCPOL zaatakował jako pierwszy i ten agresywny i bezpodstawny atak pozostanie nieusprawiedliwiony. (Odylen)
Po pierwsze nie rewertuję twoich edycji w artykułach aby się zemścić. To jest tylko twój wymysł. Zrewertowałem twoją edycję bo kolejny raz zapominasz, że Śląsk nie leży tylko w Polsce! A co do ataku osobistego to najpierw musisz poczytać co to jest atak osobisty, nie nazwałem cię w żaden sposób, jedynie zapowiedziałem że będę rewertować polski nacjonalizm i mam do tego prawo gdyż mam za sobą zasady Wikipedii. PS. Zemsta? To kolejny twój wymysł. Gdybyś już nic nie robił to bym o tobie zapomniał. LUCPOL (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Powiem jasno: można pisać do kogoś w niemiły sposób, ale jawne przezywanie innych użytkowników takimi wyzwiskami powinno natychmiast skutkować blokadą. Biorąc pod uwagę że tych ataków się już nazbierało to blokada powinna wynosić co najmniej miesiąc. Gdyby IPek 81.106.128.119 / świeżo zalogowany User:Odylen pozostał przy niemiłych tekstach typu "Twoje brednie ..." etc nie bym nic tu nie pisał, jak już wspomniałem wcześniej - nie miłe teksty nie są wystarczającym powodem do blokady. Piszę, bo IP/Odylen używa poważnych ataków osobistych. Nigdy bym nie przypuszczał że będzie można jawnie nazywać kogoś nazistą, świrem czy śmieciem i w ciągu kilku godzin nie doczekać się blokady. Na dodatek niepokoi jeszcze jego wypowiedź "Poczekam sobie spokojnie aż sam ukręcisz sobie bicz na własny zadek... no może czasem troszkę Ci w tym pomogę" - teraz już są jasne jego intencje. LUCPOL (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piknie. Miałem spokój przez jakiś czas aż tu znowu mi się taki klops zwala. Czy wy ludzie nie potraficie już dyskutować jak przystało na przedstawicieli cywilizacji informacji? Jak się wszędzie wietrzy podstęp, to się powinno w domu zamurować i nosa nie wyściubiać.
LUCPOL: zachowałeś się nieprofesjonalnie (jak na doświadczonego Wikipedystę, którym mienisz się być) zaczynając od tekstu w stylu "chory polski nacjonalizm" - tym samym już na wstępie przyjąłeś agresywną postawę i zrobiłeś grunt pod nacjonalistyczny flame war. Poza tym, uważasz, że IP trolluje, to czemu nie stosujesz zasady #1 czyli ignoruj? Wreszcie po ostatnie, powinieneś wiedzieć, że blokady mają charakter prewencyjny, a nie penitencjarny, więc nie wyliczaj mi tu na ile miesięcy mam zakładać blokadę.
IP/Odylen: jeszcze gorzej - Ty chyba w ogóle nie czytasz co ludzie piszą. Wiesz od czego są strony dyskusji? Od dyskusji (no kto by pomyślał!) Jak ktoś Ci tam tłumaczy dlaczego zrewertował Twoją edycję, to polemizuj (byle rzeczowo), a nie bezmyślnie klikaj na "undo". I przestań obrażać ludzi, bo napawa mnie to obrzydzeniem. Jak zobaczę, że nie jesteś zdolny do dyskusji i kolaboracji przy tworzeniu encyklopedii, to zostaniesz praw do edycji pozbawiony.
Podsumowując, ten komentarz dobrze określa również moje stanowisko. Jak znowu zobaczę, że któraś ze stron zachowuje się wbrew zasadom harmonijnej współpracy, to zacznę zapobiegać rozprzestrzenianiu witriolu przez pozbawianie praw do edycji, bo chamstwa nie zniese. Миша1321:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MiszaBot request: force section archive
Is there any chance of a template to mark a section as ready to archive, even if it doesn't have a recognizable timestamp? The first three sections of my talk page (counting the first and third as being the WikiProject Time newsletters seem to have a timestamp which I've added, and the second has an {{unsigned2}} timestamp. Sorry if you've already set up one of these, and I'm looking at the wrong page. — Arthur Rubin(talk)19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not without adding a correct timestamp. Note also that none of the first three threads on your talk page have a correct timestamp:
Can you explain why you have selectively excised specific threads from the Osho discussion page in the last number of months?
Where is the evidence of attempting to arrive at a consensus before the actions were taken?
The editing ignores chronology, can you explain this? Semitransgenic (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Osho Archiving 2
Again, I ask,:
Can you explain why you have selectively excised specific threads from the Osho discussion page in the last number of months?
Where is the evidence of attempting to arrive at a consensus before the actions were taken?
The editing ignores chronology, can you explain this?
Are you aware that you have totally screwed the order of discussion and effectively concealed relevant debate about pressing issues?
What in the world are you talking about? If someone placed the archiving template on the discussion page without consensus, it's their problem, not mine. I only provide the archiving service that works according to a specific algorithm - the business use of it is outside my interest. I have no clue what you mean by "ignoring chronology" - the bot only archives threads that have reached a certain age - yes, they might get pulled out from between others that didn't qualify (because they were still active - quite logical) - as a result, the threads are stored in the archives in order of ceased activity. I didn't "screw" anything, so take your angry stomping elsewhere. Reinstate whatever you wish, I couldn't care less. If you don't like my bot, don't use it - I don't care either (imagine I'm not being paid per customer served). Миша1313:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The specifics of how this bot works are not my concern, but I have obviously misunderstood it's functionality. Having viewed the manner in which it has excised material for archiving purposes it does appear to defy chronological rationale, therefore I would have to question it's usefulness. The bot is described as semi-automated so I asumed human intervention played some hand how it behaved, forgive me for assuming incorrectly. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"archivers are responsible" - oh are they? Well, this one ain't. In any case, just use the {{archive box}} template with an auto=yes or auto=small parameter and it will be a fire & forget - new links will appear automatically. Миша1313:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me if you remove content from a page and put it somewhere else there is an obligation to provide a link to the moved content. It's just poor manners to do anything otherwise. How did it come to be that your bot archived the contents of Talk:List of commonly misused English language phrases? I'm not really interested in learning how to use your bot, but I am interested in it not erasing content from pages I work on. What is the value of offering an option to archive content but not provide a link to the archives, other than to disappear discussions into the ether, never to be seen again? Seems somehow sinister, almost. Thanks for your assistance. Nohat (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it fulfilled your expectations. Please examine the edit more closely - all archives where the content went to are named in the edit summary.
The bot doesn't pick pages on its own - someone put the User:MiszaBot/config template on the page.
Finally, the configuration has been set to archive threads that are older (as in, not commented upon) than 30 days - hardly ones that are "worked on".
There does not seem to ever have been any attempt to get consensus for the use of your archiving bot. I do not think that "archiving" content without creating links to that content should be a valid type of editing activity for anyone, including bots, and this mode of your bot's software should be removed, or at least only be available by special request and after a consensus agreement that it is necessary. Including the names of archive pages in edit summaries is not sufficient: no one is going to think to look in the edit summaries in the edit history for content that might have been deleted if there is no evidence on the page that the content existed in the first place. I removed the MiszaBot config template from the page. Can you please restore all the deleted content, or at least create a list of links to where the content was removed to? Thanks for your assistance. Nohat (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The links are available in page history (in fact, all the bot's edits are on the first page of it). If the archive naming was standard (".../Archive N"), {{archive box}} would've taken care of everything. Contrary to what you suggest, no content is deleted either; it's just moved. If I removed the functionality you speak of, there wouldn't be anything left as it's exclusively an archiving bot (it's its only "mode of [...] software"). If someone uses it conversely to your liking, take that to that person, not me. I have placed a warning enough that consensus should be sought before setting up archiving on a public page. I'm afraid "Don't like it? Don't use it." is all I have to say here (having no time to develop the bot further at the moment). I'm not getting paid per customer served, either. Миша1318:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links in the page history are not sufficient. There are mixed in with all the other edits and, besides, who is going to look in the page history to find archive pages? I'm not suggesting your bot's functionality should be removed—archiving bots are useful—all I'm suggesting is your archiving bot should not archive content without also creating links to the archives. If you are unwilling or unable to make your bot do that, then I request that you turn it off. The act of removing content from a talk page without creating a link on that page to where the content was moved to is, if not vandalism, then at the very least mangling, and should not be allowed. I am concerned that there are pages all over Wikipedia that your bot has mangled in this way. Your bot has mangled Talk:List of commonly misused English language phrases, and, frankly, you have a responsibility to fix it. Nohat (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you used a standard naming for the archives (in fact, you still can, just move the archives around) then combined with {{archive box|auto=yes}} it's a "fire & forget" system that definitely most pages around use. Whoever decides on a non-standard system (like I did on my talk page and like Rm w a vu did on the talk page in question) must maintain an index on his own - that comes bundled with the box and I'm not able to change that anytime soon (even though it's been on a TODO list for a while now). Requesting the bot to be shut down because of this is, frankly, ridiculous and calling it vandalism is way over the top. Миша1318:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that the page was not very high-traffic, and did not need monthly archives, and the use of your bot was added unilaterally. Now there are 19 tiny archive pages, and it's going to be a hassle to merge them into larger archive pages, delete the monthly archive pages, and then create links to the new archive pages. Furthermore, I now realize that there are probably talk pages all over Wikipedia which have not been responsibly archived, and someone, probably me, now has to go through your bots' edit histories to find those pages and come up with a way to fix the problem. It seems that it is very easy, indeed too easy to add archiving to low-traffic talk pages, and then when a problem is discovered months later, like no links to archive pages, or too much granularity in the archives, it's a big burden to be placed at the feet of the person who discovers the problem when the bot owner refuses to accept any responsibility for the problem, especially if the person who requested the archiving did it maliciously or incompetently, and is unwilling or unable to fix the problem.. Nohat (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was wondering why the image was deleted. The deletion log indicates that it was unused and tagged improperly. I believe after I uploaded a higher resolution image of the CD cover, I also added a fair use rationale. Maybe somebody removed it? Article Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan was linking to it. Thanks --Kimse (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it was not used, then whatever rationale there was doesn't matter. If you wish to reinstate it in the article, let me know and I'll restore it. Миша1313:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please restore it, so I could put it back in the article. By the way, while I'm on this topic, is it okay according to Wikipedia's policy to include a non-free image to an article's infobox about a person? In this particular case, it is a CD cover that has a photographic image of the deceased singer, so I used it in {{Infobox Musical artist}}. Thanks Миша. --Kimse (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to archive my talk page. I currently manually do it every 10d, to the last time stamp date. So, a post on 8th May would be archived to my May 08 archive, User talk:Bluegoblin7/Archive 11.
Does that make sense? I don't know!
I would like the archive to automatically change and be created in the archive box every month.
There is currently no way to use a counter that increments every month, but you can use archives named after months (like "/Archives/2008/05" or similar). Миша1315:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've built this new template based on a complaint at the bot owners noticeboard. It creates automatic archive links to archives stored as some root location using the schema "YYYY/month" as the archive name. For example it would document any page using one of the folowing (in your bot format syntax):
%(year)d/%(monthname)s
%(year)d/%(monthnameshort)s
%(year)d/%(month)d
%(year)d
Maybe this could alleviate some of the hassle from chronological archiving? If you think it might be helpful I would be happy to add a link to it and explanation to your HowTo. Adam McCormick (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Less, actually. If you see my real archive map near the top of my talk page, you'll see that I have many more pages than that. Миша1323:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much. :) I'll start recommending that to people. In your free time you could also design a version that groups them into quarters (much like my own archive map, which is however maintained mostly manually); three months in a row. Миша1317:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you could've just asked me to restore it... Why, oh, why is the art of conversation lost in the tubes of teh internets... Миша1319:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you to ignore the situation. I'm trying to get the user to take my help. He should have at least a day to reach out and take my hand before the consequences of his actions are carried out. Cheers, -The Hybrid-05:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess both, but then again who am I to ask anyone to ignore anything, now that I think about it? And in response to the below statement, yes the user is canvassing everyone he can find a link to, as well as acting very immature all around. Like I said, I'm making one last ditch effort to help the user. If he doesn't take my help, I would recommend a block of some extended length. Peace, -The Hybrid-05:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that User:Altenhofen is asking all the admin he/she can find to restore his or her user page. He has personally attacked User:East718 as well. This user is constatly begging for admins (you call also call that "admin shopping") to restore his user page. Regards, RyRy5 (talk♠wikify) 05:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read east's talk page and I'm pretty surprised you're not indef blocked yet. It certainly itched my trigger finger when I read your rude (hmm, this word is an understatement) comments there. I do no wish to get myself involved in this, however, so per Hybrid's suggestion I shall ignore this request. Миша1317:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MiszaBot II key
Could I have a key for telling MiszaBot II to archive Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Fulfilled requests to subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests/Fulfilled/ (Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests/Fulfilled/Archive %(counter)d to be precise)? That page hasn't been archived in ages due to Werdnabot going down, and I don't think anyone's looked at it for a while; I tried to change it over to MiszaBot II, but due to the archiving setup there (archiving to a slightly different subpage) it won't archive without a key. --ais523 10:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages were archived, but archive box did not update
Hello! Thank you for this great archiving tool. Unfortunately I have not implemented it correctly on my own page. The archiver ran and in the History I can see that it made a nice set of archives. The archive box on my Talk page did not update though. If possible can you take a look and point out where I screwed that part up? I understand if you are too busy. Rob Banzai (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really have nothing better to do than to sit around all day watching for page-move vandalism so you can block the user within a couple of seconds of the page-move? E. Morland III (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't "sit around all day" at all (have bots for that), but thanks for your concern about my mental health. Миша1320:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From Oblivion Lover
Oblivion Lover (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I made the secret page and never got around to making it. I made an extra account because a few users would try to find me by refering to me as "Juthani" rather than "Juthani1". I thought making the account and redirecting the userpage of the account to my actual account would be helpful for a few users. Can I do this or is it against Wikipedia user account rules? I put the secret page there or will so that users will have trouble finding it. Is it ok to have an account like this or have I done something wrong? Juthani1tcs00:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. An extremely rare bug on one of the pages actually caused the entire batch to fail. Миша1317:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit of a night owl and I'm used to seeing your archive bot come through in the very early morning doing various pages. Now I see it's working in mid-afternoon (my time). No big problem, just wondering if you know that the timing seems to have changed? Franamax (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Misza13, whenever you're over at the test wiki next, could you help with an issue? I registered there with both Metros and Metros232 to prevent impersonation today. However, it appears that User:Xp54321 has decided to be overzealous or whatever it is you'd call it and protected the user pages against creation. Would you please unprotect it so I can leave a note of the account's purpose and WP:TROUT Xp54321? Thanks, Metros (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Misza13, could you follow up on this? I think Xp54321 needs to be dealt with by soneone with authority, plus half the request wasn't fulfilled. Thanks, Metros (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RyRy5 seems to be "coaching" Xp54321, whatever that encompasses... And there's plenty of sheriffs (with desysop capabilities) in case he misbehaves. As to the other half of your request, what else needs to be done? Both user and talk pages seem unprotected. Миша1317:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misread the protection log. For whatever reason, Xp54321 protected Metros & Metros232 as articles and only User:Metros as a user page. After he was told by RyRy5 that protecting User:Metros would have no effect, he decided to protect the articles... He also protected Iridescent as an article (not as a user). So, I guess there's nothing left to do if you think that the sheriffs or others over there can handle things, if needed. Thanks, Metros (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One possible problem might be that "This template will only work for archive pages up to 50." I surely know some pages that are now past that mark or quickly closing on it. In those cases, {{archive-nav}} would probably a better idea (the archiveheader accepts and substitutes variables such as %(counter)d). However, one thing to keep in mind is that the bot is used on many wikis and {{talkarchive}} is much more common world-wide (and there is currently no way to specify per-wiki defaults). 17:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I know, but I don't know if what I suggest is possible, as in if it is possible with the given parameters; in short, I don't know how to change it so that what I ask will work.— DædαlusT@lk/Improve\Contribs23:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
