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.
No, it's not silly. Empty talk pages in case of articles create an illusion of lack of activity. The existence of threads might encourage discussion. Which is why the default values are fine for most talk pages. Besides, threads on that page are not much older than the specified treshold anyway. Миша1319:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a scientific study done that if there are no threads on a talk page that nobody will create a new disscusion thread on the topic that concerns them or did you make that one up?--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If wasn't referring to creating new threads but engaging in existing ones and providing new input. It's hard to engage if there are none. Миша1319:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because if you don't archive, pages eventually grow into megabytes and become unmanageable. And I chose 5 because it's my bot and I felt good about that number. Миша1319:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lolcat deletion summaries
Hi Misza. I've made a post at a current arbitration case, and I've mentioned a page generated by your bot (MiszaBot) that enables the use of lolcat edit summaries. Would you be able to look here and clear up what is going on there? It relates to a finding of fact about the use of such edit summaries. I'm asking East718 about this as well. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies at that ArbCom case talk page. Following up a few things here. (1) Could you please consider changing the bot update code so that at the next update of User:MiszaBot/PSP, the links to lolcat deletion actions are removed? (2) Could you run a query to see how many article deletion summaries with lolcat words can be found? There is no intention to remonstrate or admonish such admins who used such summaries, especially not after the fact, but such a query would provide evidence to bring to a discussion page or to ArbCom, to suggest that lolcat language (along with other non-standard language) should be formally deprecated. If you don't want to run such a query, I'll ask around and find someone to file a request instead, but I'm asking you first, partly because I'm hoping you know more lolcat-type words than I do. Carcharoth (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Is it easier for me to remove the false positives from that page, or move the, er, non-false positives somewhere else? Carcharoth (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever suits you. I think I will only be updating that page manually, upon your request, so you can work on that page directly. Миша1319:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've finished and the final version is here. I suspect there are more out there with different lolspeak language or fragments, but that is enough for now. Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not specified the initial value for the counter variable, so it defaults to 1, which is why all threads land in /Archive 1. Just define it. Or, to stop archiving just remove the template. Миша1321:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I copied example 2 for Bot III. I changed the username, but I have another question not answered by FAQ. What number should I put in the counter slot? Should I set it at 0? (i.e. counter = 3 [that is the example]) Remember to put talk back template on my talk page. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm forwarding a request to archive the talk page. The current settings seem to be every 12 hours, but I see coversations older than that. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Could you have a look at the following diff, and see if you can work out where the bot archived the threads to? [1]. I've since updated the parameters to go to archive 2, but i can't work out where these 4 threads went? Thanks in advance! --GedUK13:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your bot no longer seems to be archiving my talkpage. The last archiving that occurred, I did manually, and I have a number of threads now that are older than than the 15day archiving period I have set. When you have time, could you take a look and see if you can tell what's wrong? Did the code for the archiving request get corrupted somehow? Or...??? LadyofShalott03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
