User talk:Aciram/Archives/2015/February

For test archiving

This is just a test section. w.carter-Talk 22:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Archivist test

Ignore this. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello and thank you for correcting my silly mistake in the Chinese Pavilion at Drottningholm. Since I am curious by nature, I always check out editors who's name I don't recognize. Hope you don't mind. :) Always nice to meet a fellow foreigner. I noticed that your talk page is getting rather long, and it takes a while for it to upload. If you would like me to install an archive for you, just let me know. All the best, w.carter-Talk 23:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciation! It is easy to overlook such mistakes. The work I do here focus on more obscure subjects, I suppose, I normally write about history of women during the early modern age. I am happy for your offer! Actually, I had no idea my page takes a while to upload because of its length, but that makes it perfectly alright for me to take you up on your offer. I have been wishing to have an archive for years, but never got around to it: I am not very capable of these technical issues, so I have preferred to simply leave the matter rather than risk getting entangled in something which would require time and effort for me to do. Time, unfortunately, I do not have, as I often participate here to relax - without being sloppy in my work, of course. But if you ca install an archive here, without it demanding time an effort from me, I would be very grateful! All the best back to you, --Aciram (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm one of the "nerds" here so I can certainly set up a little box for you. It will not require any assistance from you other than your trust that I do the right thing. I will also have to manually archive the first post to see that it works ok. After that it can sometimes take a few days before the system recognize that there is an archive at your page, but I will monitor it. After that it is all done automatically. The usual setting is that anything older than 30 days gets archived and there will always be at least 6 posts left on your page. Is that ok with you? Or do you want a longer/shorter archiving-span or more/less posts left? I'll start as soon as you give the go ahead. w.carter-Talk 00:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful! I am confidant that I will have no reason to regret it. As for the setting, I don't get that many posts here, as the subjects of my work here are quite obscure. Perhaps one archive for each year will be sufficient for this page, if that's possible? One archive for each year would give me a good view of what has happened when. That would leave two posts this year. I think that would be fine! --Aciram (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Automatic year-archive also include months, but I guess that is not a problem. The archives usually count in days, so I'll make it 360 days to be on the safe side. I'll get right on it. Please don't do any edits here now to avoid edit conflict. Best, w.carter-Talk 15:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I have everything in place now. We will just have to wait and see when the bot kicks in. Fingers crossed. I'll monitor your page until I'm sure everything is ok. w.carter-Talk 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear! I just saw something when I checked the Bot page. It says. "If you are starting archiving with a backlog this will result in a single file with all of your old threads older than 1 year". That is not what you want, so I'll start with doing this manually. It will take some time I'm afraid... To save some time I'll do them one for each year in the month of the last post that year. Best, w.carter-Talk 16:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done All your posts are now in their proper place in your archive. It is fully searchable and organized. Hope it's something like what you wanted, just let me know if I screwed up somewhere. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks excellent, w.carter! There is nothing to ad, it all seem to be exactly they way I wished for it to be. Everything seems to look and work well when I look through it. I am very grateful for your trouble. This makes it easier for both myself and people visiting my page. Who could have thought this when i corrected 1735 to 1753? Thank you very much! Best, --Aciram (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Such things are what the WP is all about when it's at its best. :) I'll also ask a tech-friend to check it for me. See you around, w.carter-Talk 18:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Just me again

I asked, and it was suggested that I add some things. Just letting you know. I also create a section below just to have something to archive. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Tested and fixed now. There was also a question about the year-long archiving. 90 days is better, it will fall into the right months anyway. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 22:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Well your little correction led to a whole string of improvements. :) There was apparently a bug in the larger archiving system, revealed by this a bit more unusual archive that we set up for you. Might have gone unnoticed otherwise. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 23:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy to have been the cause of that discovery! Sometimes you can actually improve things in general when asking for favors, it seem! Chers to ou back!--Aciram (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louise van der Nooth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brabant. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophia_Magdalena_of_Denmark&oldid=647882148&diff=prev

Hi, Aciram, I noticed your edit. Why if I may ask so? Lotje (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I'm not sure if I made a mistake or not, but when I noticed it, I saw that you left some of the references as just bare urls, whn they had been well formed before your edit. Therefore, I assumed your edit was not a good one, at least not in that aspect. --Aciram (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Arer you talking about the Bibliographic references? Because the other ones in the Inline references I fixed. Also the name: it is not Charles Gustav but Karl Gustav, as per the Swedish wikipedia. Anyway, I leave it up to you now. Lotje (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The name Karl Adolf I have no problem with. Royal names are usually translated here, so it should be Charles, if you look at the Swedish kings named Karl, but that is not my concern. If you look at your link you posted here above, you will see under "line 336", that some of the references, which were perfectly will formed before your edit, were left as bare url after your edit. That is not an improvement, as references are not suppose to be bare url. Thank you, it is probably best. No references which were before well formed are improved by being made urls. --Aciram (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Elis Schröderheim

added a link pointing to Bellman

Ulrika Strömfelt

added a link pointing to Pawn

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)