User talk:Σ/Archive/2017/August
 | 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. |
You've got mail!
Message added 11:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
MfD nomination of User:Σ/Testing facility/T
User:Σ/Testing facility/T, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Σ/Testing facility/T and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Σ/Testing facility/T during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
107.1.99.186 has discussion archives
I have discussion archives on my user talk page, which Lowercase sigmabot III needs to archive. Can you get this user to archive it? --107.1.99.186 (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Bot mistakenly removes comment
In this edit [1], bot removed a post made seconds before. (Search the text That's well and good to a point in the diff.) Just a guess, but I wonder if this is related to the fact that the archive counter was incremented. I've restored the post, BTW. EEng 11:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Same happened here, bot archived a thread in which the last edit was yesterday. Please look into it. Regards SoWhy 06:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- The underlying problem is that it takes some time, maybe a second or two, to process the talk page, determine which threads should go to which archives, etc. before the bot prepares the new text and makes the edit. It's certainly an edit conflict, but not in the classical sense that we're used to when people rapid-fire vote on AfDs or something. And it's certainly an issue that can be fixed. →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- The obvious fix is to abort and start over if the page version that was analyzed is no longer the current version. EEng 02:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC) As a P.S. I want to express my appreciation for the work you do in maintaining this important facility.
- The underlying problem is that it takes some time, maybe a second or two, to process the talk page, determine which threads should go to which archives, etc. before the bot prepares the new text and makes the edit. It's certainly an edit conflict, but not in the classical sense that we're used to when people rapid-fire vote on AfDs or something. And it's certainly an issue that can be fixed. →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Pretty much. I will find time to implement this. And thanks for the kind words. →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Another race condition example
In this diff [2] the bot does its thing, but mistakenly removes something added just seconds before (my flippant image – see the left side of the diff). EEng 03:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm working on it. →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)