User talk:Σ/Archive/2021/August

Don’t remove stuff from other talk pages

The rules clearly state that nobody is allowed to remove stuff from talk pages that aren’t your own. Therefore I suggest you stop doing it. Dinoboyaz (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Dinoboyaz: You refer, I believe, to this edit and your partial revert. Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs) was acting correctly, and indeed is explicitly permitted by its BRFA to perform such edits. See also Help:Archiving a talk page and WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hip Hop

Just wanted to know is their any particular reason you closed my case and no one even opened it up yet and then you saying to put it on a talk page, can you explain to me why so that I know, you just close it and say no more discussion, when I came for help, this is pertaining to the six elements of the hip hop movement. I just need a response because I'm collecting all this data about the whole situation on wiki because I need to turn this in soon. Street sting (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Bot not archiving talk page

I can't figure out why LowerCase Sigmabot isn't running on Talk:Poppy (entertainer). I have the config template inserted correctly, it's just ignoring it for some reason. Can you help? ♟♙ (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@EnPassant: When Mgasparin (talk · contribs) set it up two years ago, they used an invalid value for |archive=. This edit should fix it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Ughh... it's always some little detail I miss. Thank you! ♟♙ (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Editor Interaction Analyser missing IPv6 edits?

Hi. I just noticed that this query comes up with all zeros for 2603:8090:1340:239A:DAD1:3B7A:D010:FCC8, missing that they've edited Aaron Coleman. It looks like it takes IPv6 addresses to be case sensitive. Is that intentional? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Salom

Salom alekekum XxXdito (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Archiving not happening

I set up autoarchiving on a page about 10 days ago, but nothing has happened. Have I got something wrong? SpinningSpark 18:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Er, apart from this edit, you mean? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Doh, how did I miss that! I must have inadvertently cleared the page from my watchlist. SpinningSpark 22:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Bot archive fail or am I missing something?

The archive bot deleted an old discussion thread[1] but it does not seem to have been added to relevant archive page. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek/Archive_9 What happened? (I hope you can answer, I will check back here over the next few days.) -- 109.77.196.10 (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I see that the bot archived the discussion to page 6 of the archive instead of page 9. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek/Archive_6#DISPLAYTITLE Why would something like that happen? -- 109.76.133.249 (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The {{User:MiszaBot/config}} has no |counter= parameter. In such circumstances, I think that lowercase sigmabot III looks for the first page matching "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive n" (where n is a positive integer) that has not yet exceeded the size specified by |maxarchivesize=, in this case 70K (71,680 bytes), and where the thread to be archived will not take the archive past this limit. For the record, the present sizes of the archive pages are:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 1 - 110,712 bytes
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 2 - 71,526 bytes
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 3 - 71,172 bytes
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 4 - 139,184 bytes
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 5 - 108,343 bytes
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 6 - 71,374 bytes
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 7 - 61,135 bytes
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 8 - 199,279 bytes
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/Archive 9 - 25,683 bytes

So, if the next thread to be archived is smaller than (71,680 - 71,526) = 154 bytes, it'll go to archive 2; if it's more than 154 bytes but less than (71,680 - 71,172) = 508 bytes, it'll go to archive 3; if it's more than 508 bytes but less than (71,680 - 61,135) = 10,545 bytes, it'll go to archive 7; if it's more than 10,545 bytes but less than (71,680 - 25,683) = 45,997 bytes, it'll go to archive 9; if it's more than 45,997 bytes, archive 10 will be started. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking deeper, it seems that in December 2017 Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) removed the archiving code under a misapprehension - at the time, the maximum archive size was 200K, and archive 8 was still well below that figure - so the bot was functioning properly because it was not yet time to move on to archive 9. The correct action should have been to reduce the value in |maxarchivesize=200K to something significantly lower, perhaps 100K.

Then in July 2020 when Alex 21 (talk · contribs) re-added the archiving config, they omitted the crucial |counter=8 parameter, and also set some other params to different values than had previously been used. None of these have been altered since. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Can't say I recall this with any specificity, but generally I feel like one-click by a human is a better fit in the case of lower traffic talk pages. Looks like I did make an error in my reasoning here though. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the technical explanation but when push comes to shove the end result for an ordinary reader was confusing. It also seems too easy for editors to misconfigure the bot, but there's only so much you can do I suppose. Thanks anyway. -- 109.76.204.195 (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Commented out Miszabot config on User:Σ/Testing facility

Hi! Just wanted to let you know I commented out the archiving configuration on User:Σ/Testing facility, to prevent several pages from showing up in Category:Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage. I assume this won't be a problem. --rchard2scout (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Please stop archiving this request for UIUC

It's relatively recent, it's quite legitimate, and no reason has been given for the archiving. "main library building [...] houses nearly 10 subject-oriented libraries" is puzzling at best. How many are "nearly 10"? Nine? If so, just report that. - If the statement is meant to mean something other than 'less than ten', it needs explanation Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Barefoot through the chollas: You refer, I believe, to edits like this. Please be precise on such matters: we should not have to guess.

The archiving configuration for Talk:University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign has |algo=old(90d) which means that any thread that has gone more than 90 days without comment is eligible for archiving. You added that thread way back on 18 February 2021, and there have been no replies since. If anything, lowercase sigmabot III has been lenient because the thread first became eligible for archiving on 19 May 2021, which is over three months ago; so the bot is doing its job correctly, if slowly.

On that matter, please stop restoring the thread to the talk page: each time that you do so, it will soon be archived again with the result that Talk:University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign/Archive 1 will contain another redundant copy of the same thread. At present there are three. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, if whoever/whatever is responsible would cease the uncalled-for archiving, multiple copies would not show up in the archive. That bit of comic circularity aside, there are now four dated topics on the talk page, three dated 2005, one dated 2004, whereas the legitimate call for clarification re the subject libraries is from "way back" in February of this year. Okay, I'll stop being snarky, but I think anyone would admit that things are a bit wacky in this case. So to the point. My objection is not to archiving. On the talk pages of innumerable articles there is discussion that has clearly played itself out and should have been archived long ago. My objection is to injudicious archiving, with no reason given, and then when it's rescued from premature archiving... archived yet again, still not a hint of why, and no evidence that the eager archivist has given as much as a second of thought to the appropriateness of the archiving in the first place -- is the topic legit? Would it help the article to have it addressed? Is there any good reason not to leave it up? And that is followed up by anything but the civility of explaining how to address the question in Talk in such a way as to not be subject to arbitrary archiving. Sorry to be apparently rude, but I'm sometimes not my usual cheery self when faced with multiple discourtesies. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Please understand that the archiving is carried out by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs) which is a bot, not a human: it cannot make subjective decisions. It acts according to instructions that can be judged objectively, these are set out in the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of the page. One of these is |algo=old(90d), as mentioned above.

Now, as to the threads that were passed over for archiving - none of them has a single valid timestamp, so lowercase sigmabot III cannot work out their ages, and so cannot know whether they are more than 90 days old or not. The "School of Communications now School of Media" has no timestamp at all; the timestamps of the other four all have abbreviated months, and in the case of the thread "Poll on University Naming Conventions", the month and day are also the wrong way around. For a bot to correctly parse a timestamp, it must be in the same format as would be produced by a normal signature. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Back in the day, Monte Python could've done a magnificent sketch on this. I'll produce another thread for the Talk page in question. Same discussion, of course, since the first wasn't addressed immediately, but freshly worded. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)