User talk:Σ/Archive/2015/May

Speedy deletion nomination of Unidan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Unidan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ravelair (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Odd bot diff

In this diff the bot claims to be archiving to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2015 Archive Apr 1 but it doesn't exist, it hasn't created it, and seems to have mislaid two of the discussions it was trying to archive.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed by Graham87 (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#Bot problem. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I asked for help there after trying myself to finish the archiving but being unable to because a spam filter objected to the content being archived and would not let me create the page. I don't know if this is any help with diagnosing the problem, it does seem to be the only instance of it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

hi

sorry to bother you however im having trouble with setting the archives,you helped me once at ebola/west Africa, let me know, im having trouble with another page, thanks?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

its fixed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Archiving issues

I have come across at least two articles recently where archiving seems to not be working properly. One is Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), the other is Talk:Sabrina Erdely. The Erdley page hasn't archived since I established the archive in early April and the Mattress talk page hasn't archived since February. If you could take a look and maybe try to figure out whats going on, that would be great. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I figured out what was wrong with at least the one page - misspelled the name of the article in the archiving code. Shearonink (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I *think* I have it figured out for the second one too...but I'll see if archiving kicks in within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk page not archiving chronologically

Sorry to bother, but the Gary Webb talk page is not archiving according to the time/date that sections were added; for instance, in archive 3 at the bottom, the last part of the archive is non-sequential; this will cause problems for anyone trying to follow the discussion. Is there anyway to fix the scrambled sequence, or at least avoid this problem in the future? Thanks in advance for any help/suggestions. Rgr09 (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Rgr09: It's not the date that the section was added that counts, but the date that the section was last posted to - i.e. the latest time/date that the bot can find within the section. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64:Thanks for the info. I will definitely change the way I respond on talk pages; keeping conversations coherent on a talk page is one of the trickier parts of Wikipedia. Rgr09 (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Who decides how often pages get archived?

Who decides how often pages get archived? Talk:Edward Snowden gets yanked weekly, sometimes even sooner than that. Did one person make that decision? This might be considered a power move. tks for your reply. • Arch♦Reader 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @ArchReader: As noted at User:lowercase sigmabot III, you should see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo for instructions on setting up automated archiving; in that we find that the |algo= parameter specifies the maximum age of a thread. In the case of Talk:Edward Snowden, it's |algo=old(30d) which is 30 days, not one week. This was set with this edit, prior to which it was |algo=old(10d) - 10 days, so the archiving interval is now three times as long as it once was. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That's odd. I see archiving on 20 March, 13 March, 10 March, 9 March, 14 February, 30 Dec, 19 Dec, 12 Dec. • Arch♦Reader 09:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood the question. In which case, the answer is that the bot runs every day round about 00:01 (UTC), although it only archives a page if there are threads which meet the qualifications set by {{User:MiszaBot/config}} - such as being old enough as set by |algo=. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Tks • Arch♦Reader 09:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

On a similar topic, my talk page hasn't been archived for a few days now...is something up? Ping me if I need to reply to something! Appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: It archived this morning. What problem do you see here? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it must've slipped through my small attentive window. I'm getting so much talk chatter I didn't notice 3 threads were gone. Should be cleaner by tomorrow then, thanks for your dilligence! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Missing directory

I've noticed this on several pages. When you BOT archives, it leaves no trace of where it archives to. There should be a directory on all pages containing an archive showing where those archived pages are stored. Trackinfo (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not part of the bot's task. It is the responsibility of those who add the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} to a talk page to add a suitable archive navigation template; there are several available, such as {{archive box}}, {{archive box collapsible}}, {{archives}} etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Pseudoscience

There's a strange problem with the archiving bot at Talk:Pseudoscience, it hasn't archived anything since November 2013, but not for lack of trying, see here. Not sure what the problem is. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it actually worked now... o_O — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki

This issue Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki was not formally closed before it was archived. Would it be possible for someone to have a look at this issue and formally close it or address the issues contained within? Itsmeront (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Itsmeront: lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs) archives threads based upon the elapsed time since the last post to the thread. It has no means for determining if the thread was "closed" or not, nor does it perform closures. It is often the case that discussions at WP:ANI simply stop without formal closure, and so become archived in whatever state they were left. An examination of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885 shows that a good number of the threads lack the purple box that is often wrapped around a "closed" discussion. If you think that a formal closure is necessary, you should file a request at WP:AN/RFC. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64 (talk) Thank you! That is very helpful. I have put in a request at WP:AN/RFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeront (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)