User talk:Kslotte/Archive 2010

Articles for deletion nomination of International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

I have nominated International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jack Merridew 22:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Nothing personal; I'd have preferred if this were simply cut from the main article and left in the history. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

National champion in orienteering, notable?

I hope you no longer hold the opinion that being a national champion in orienteering = "notability for orienteering not met". Geschichte (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You probably mean Jon Fossum. The article doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE and therefore shouldn't have Category:Norwegian orienteers. Category can be added when there is content indicating that he has been competing on a professional level (WC or EC). --Kslotte (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you get that from. Geschichte (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

He probably has been competing on a professional level, but with the current text there isn't any such indications. Is the same as we don't categorize MTB-O orienteers as Ski-O orienteers, even if most compete on national level. --Kslotte (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I did put a question at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#People_with_several_careers to get an answer on the dilemma. --Kslotte (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Jon Fossum should be tagged as Category:Norwegian orienteers. --Kslotte (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand Adolf Skjegstad is the kind of guy who does not get the category Norwegian orienteers, because he clearly did not compete on a notable level (started around age 70). Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sugar Bowl

I've updated the article "Sugar Bowl Ski Resort" with some history and lots of references, I'm not sure if I should remove the "stub tag" at the bottom of the page or not. Was wondering if you could look it over and see if I should add more or not to remove the tag Tinkermen (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Kslotte (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

International Reaction for 2010 Thai Military crackdown

Hi! please discuss the removal here on the talk page. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.19.246.52 (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Air India Express Flight 812

I was going to drop you a line re those edits, but I see youve noticed! Here's 'my' Diff just to make sure we are on about the same thing! I thought you had reverted this, but they apparently did a self revert then put this back. Others made 'good faith' edits to it, but didn't notice it was unreferenced 'drivel'. Made it harder to revert. Regards --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

NB its back again No, more 'unconstructive edits' in a different section Diff !--220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I keep my eyes open. --Kslotte (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice edits

per Gyaneshwari Express train derailment. Kudos.Lihaas (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply

See my talk page.--RM (Be my friend) 05:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla reactions

you may not believe we are agreeing, but i tried removing some of the more obvious flagcruft, although its going to be quite a project on all of them here. I guess youre up to the task, i did help though ;)

The non-national flags like the OIC and NATO certainly fall in the definitionLihaas (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I don't have time to look at it now. Main article has issues. --Kslotte (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twelve hours for violation of the one-revert rule at Gaza flotilla clash. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kslotte (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

reverts and editing have been done according to policy and consensus

Decline reason:

I see at least two reverts by you on that article; you've been editing the article talk page, so I just have to assume you were aware that the article had been placed under the one-revert rule. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kslotte (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yes, I did reverts. But the reason for this is to make the article follow policies; for example this was according to MOS and this was edited (several times) without consensus by user Reenem (there was lead discussions on the talk page)

Decline reason:

Except for clear vandalism the 1RR is clear. Both of your reverts were unrelated to vandalism by your own admission. 12 block is valid - next will be escalating. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

June 2010

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Gaza flotilla raid. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How are the pictures you added related to Gaza flotilla raid? and how do the pictures improve the article? Talk page are not meant for off-topic thinks. Your pictures could be classified as spam. --Kslotte (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid

You wrote at Gaza flotilla raid: According to an unnamed military official the aid, however, did not reach its destination because the Hamas did not allow its entrance to the Gaza Strip. How is that sourced? According to your page you don't speak Hebrew in which the reference is. Please, explain or revert your change if it is not fully sourced? --Kslotte (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at what I inserted[1] I just clearified that it was according to an unnamed army official. I checked it using Google Translate. // Liftarn (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, please add comments when editing. It will avoid others being suspicious about edits. Lycka till i fortsättningen med editeringar ;) --Kslotte (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Furkan Dogan

On Gaza flotilla raid, your revert bypassed my comments on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Further, Dogan's nationality is a notable aspect of the raid; a good faith edit would have maintained this information even if it excluded his name.--Carwil (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The nationality may be notable, but not the person. In what way is the nationality notable? --Kslotte (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

An international incident is defined in part by which nations are involved. If your real problem was just WP:NOTMEMORIAL, you could have edited the text to read "a 19-year-old American national..."--Carwil (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

i believe he's trying to say "an American citizen was killed" is notable, but as we see from USS Liberty, it could be the incident and not individuals. (i still think non-notables could be on the list un-red-linked) Pohick2 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, i'm fully aware that these bios will go to AfD, it's the only way to know if they're notable, although you are a good guesser. Pohick2 (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

i see you've run afoul of the wikilawyers, while i sympathize with your position about notibility in the list, i would advise to let it go, in the long run it will come back to your vision. Pohick2 (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Taekwondo

They were national level taekwondo players, there are pages for national level players, for example Elif Ağca. But, I am not sure that Turkish sources can be trusted after learning that Ali Ekber Yaratılmış is not dead, I think the information from Israel government can be in error. It can be deleted. Kavas (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC) But, no problem with other player, Topçuoğlu, he was a national player. Kavas (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, respond on my question: Talk:List_of_participants_of_the_Gaza_flotilla#I_add_taekwondo_players --Kslotte (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, again

You have been blocked for a period of thirty-six hours for violation of the 1RR at Gaza flotilla raid. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, I'm referring to the following two edits:

• 12:08, June 3, a reversion of 11:50, June 3.
• 14:16, June 3, a reversion of 14:06, June 3.

-- tariqabjotu 15:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kslotte (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yesterday block was OK; but this time I'm very confused on what the block is based. Why did I get blocked? I have made reverts on Gaza flotilla raid sub-pages reactions and participants, but those aren't covered by 1RR.

Decline reason:

I've examined the above two diffs and they appear to be correct. It's easy to tell that you are enthusiastic about contributing to this article; perhaps just move more slowly and carefully in the future to avoid a longer block. When dealing with a very contentious article like this, it never hurts to be slow and deliberate about your choices; dispute resolution is readily available should you be in conflict with another editor. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kslotte (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I interpreted the first one as serious violation of NPOV, almost vandalism. Comment does not include word vandalism, since I want to be polite. Does it still count?

Decline reason:

If it really was vandalism, you would not have had those reservations. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

RE: Saqqa Jordan at Gaza flotilla

Please refer to the below links for articles from the Jordanian official english Daily newspaper The Jordan Time that mention Mr. Saqqa and quote him on that matter before and after the event. So kindly revert the edit i made!

http://www.jordantimes.com/index.php?news=26434&searchFor=saqqa http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=27151&searchFor=wael%20saqqa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basem (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability at Jordan Times: "Wael Saqa, former president of the professional associations and head of the Jordanian delegation, said he refused to sign deportation papers while under arrest insisting that Israeli forces kidnapped them from international waters."

--Kslotte (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Saqqa is now in the list. --Kslotte (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus building

Hi Kslotte, allow me to remind you of a few rules:

You have to reach consensus before you can revert.

Two, if consensus is not reached then there is a procedure to follow.

Three, you have to give reasonable time for all parties to respond (on WP that's about a day or two). You can't put up a notice and within a few hours remove even if all the editors that showed up within that hour agreed with you(which they didn't anyway). Thanks ManasShaikh (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO, consensus is needed to "reinstate your edit". And, I did not revert your change. I only wrote that the "revert has been done". --Kslotte (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I brought your edit up on talk, since the edit being appropriate may be disputed. Nothing personal, just "business". --Kslotte (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Shyetet 13 Moto

After I revert an edit which replaced the previous folitilla 13 moto with "never again" you reverted me and entered it again. In the edit summary you wrote that the moto is verified but nevertheless you left "citation needed" tamplate in the article itself(?). So, as I see it, it's your responsiblity to provide source a.s.a.p. --Gilisa (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

On based on what policy you hold me responsible, I didn't originally added it. "there is no specific deadline for providing citations" according to Template:Citation_needed. --Kslotte (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You re-entered removed material and wrote in the edit summary that the moto "never again" is the correct one and that you have verified it. So, using what source? Or that you just revert? The moto "never again", as you know well, originally replaced other claimed moto of flotilla 13. So, yes, I see it as your responsibilty to provide source. If you can't then I will revrt your edit again. --Gilisa (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have a WP:RS, but several sites stating it. Wikipedia is about collaboration. We have "citation needed" template to indicate that we need a RS. Why reverting back something that probably is true? --Kslotte (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Provide me even one not RS which support it. It's 100% not their moto, I know for 100% it's not their moto and I will add citation with their real one tommorow. You wrote "the moto is true, verified". Now you tell me you verified it with unreliable source and preaching me what wikipedia is about. I want to see one of the sources, reliable or not, argue the unit moto is "never again", I couldn't found one. I suggest you revert your edit. I think we are very close to consider it disruptive consider that you argue you verified unit moto which not exist to revert my last edit there. --Gilisa (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Use Google: "Shayetet 13" "never again" --Kslotte (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't do it again. This is not their moto however, their moto is quite different and as you already mentioned you didn't use reliable sources, I ask you again to revert yourself. --Gilisa (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

On my google search I finds 360 with word combination "Shayetet 13" and "never again". And you say 100% not their motto. Maybe you should re-consider yout 100%.

The name means “Flotilla 13,” and their official motto is the same as the Israeli military: “Never Again,” in reference to the Holocaust. Their unofficial motto, as they like to joke, is “When the going gets tough, the Jews get pissed.” http://listverse.com/2010/01/11/top-10-badasses-of-the-worlds-special-forces/

You told yourself the sources unreliable right? So there is no reason to use them now to prove your point, you thought you verified it but it's a mistake. According to the Israeli Navy official website their moto is "Like a bat appearing in the dark, as a knife that cuts in silence, like a grande exploding with a roar". It's in Hebrew but I'm sure you could find something in English as well. --Gilisa (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP:AGF, I improved into something I thought was good. You or someone else can improve it further. --Kslotte (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually assumed good faith, certainly after you provided a souce. I asked you to revert yourself because it's nor counted as a revert while if I revert you it will be a violation of the 3RR. --Gilisa (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please stop inserting this piece of nonsense into the article. "Never again" is not an S'13 motto nor an IDF motto, and the source you provide is amazingly poor on so many counts. Poliocretes (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Content removal

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gaza flotilla raid, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Please stop making arbitrary edits, removals, and reverts ignoring the discussions on the talk page. This is a violation of WP:STATUSQUO, as well as the WP:1RR restriction on the page. If you continue, you will be reported. --386-DX (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Response on Project-lists talk page

I've responded to your post: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists #List box. cheers Dkriegls (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Kandahar wedding bombing

I have seen you edited 2010 Kandahar wedding bombing. I have nothing to do with your edit, but because you are a admin, I want to suggest you to increase the article's protection, because I have seen many vandalism through the page's history. Please leave a answer on my talk.--AFGstyla20 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not an admin. --Kslotte (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And, the article don't need protection at the moment. --Kslotte (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Both Millî Gazete and Vakit (today Anadolu'da Vakit) are very famous (maybe "radical") Islamist newspaper in Turkey. Of course they are notable. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is there nothing written about him on these pages then? and why isn't those article in English if they are that notable? Prove what at WP:AUTHOR is satisfied and in what way. -- Kslotte (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Only because nobody wants to write. Takabeg (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Being part of notable newspapers doesn't make him notable. --Kslotte (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Bakarız :) Takabeg (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

MV Rachel Corrie Coorditates

I believe the coordinates 31.40N 34.27E are still inaccurate since it's only 2.4 Km, 1.5 miles west (not east) of Gaza shores, while according to reports [2] between 6:30 AM and 7:30 Am they were about 25 miles away from Gaza, also based on unconfirmed reports that the ship could “be seen from Gaza shores.” that is why I estimated it at coordinates 31.41N 33.99E which is about 15 miles from Gaza shores and 25 miles from Gaza port [3]Kessale (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I have mistaken decimal and minute/seconds formats. --Kslotte (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I filled in your coordinates. You could write in as comment your reasoning after the coordinates. --Kslotte (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Danzig talkpage

Hi there, I partially reverted your changes to the auto archiving at this page. 20 days is a bit short, so I changed it to 30 days. However, there's really no particular reason to have more than 1 thread left there. I do appreciate what you're trying to do in any case, but as you see above, if you start changing things on a wide scale like that it tends to upset people (and then some people are fairly nice about it like Arthur and Elen, and some other people can be real jerks). Auto archiving is usually helpful on large and/or exceptionally busy talkpages, but it can be helpful to post a note there and ask first in the case of some of the political articles, or other articles where lots of people are having long-winded, running conversations. The articles I've found that benefit the most from automatic archiving are ones about popular musicians, actors, and people like that. Those talk pages are usually full of junk from fans but are rarely patrolled by anyone interested in cleaning them up. Anyway, thank you for your good faith contributions and have a nice day. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, feel free to change the values to something that suits you better. --Kslotte (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sensible

I applaud the thoughtfulness you've shown in your hidden note at Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is risk someone else will try to implement achieving, since the talk page is listed at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Long_pages. --Kslotte (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Adjusting archiving

Why are you doing it. You seem to be doing it at random. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not doing it at random. I adjust the parameters for the archive process to leave threads and size according to WP:SIZERULE. If the page is short (to aggressive archiving) I put a longer archive time to get a page with reasonable size WP:LENGTH. If page is to long page, I check the timestamps to figure out a suitable archive time. --Kslotte (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, I noted some reverts by you.... Talk:2010 Times Square car bombing attempt is on 13kB long with only 4 threads. This definitely to effective archiving. We can easily double or triple the page length without any navigation or edit issues. --Kslotte (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, you have also reverted several others, without taking into consideration the current archiving process. Why are you working against the recommendations of page length or making archiving to effective so users don't have time to comment on things before they get archived?

Glossary of ancient Roman religion

Further to above, please do not add archiving to pages without discussion with talkpage regulars. We have been deliberately NOT archiving Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion as all the terms intersect with each other, and we keep referring back and forwards. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking here. --Kslotte (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

Archiving is not only per WP:SIZERULE. Even if that were the only goal, archiving would be set by using the maxsize paramameter. Setting minthreads is clearly inappropriate when long threads appear. Increasing the archive time might be appropriate, but it might be the case that the archive time was set to rapidly archive the frequent inappropriate threads, as in the 9/11 articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not a simple thing to get the archive parameters in balance. But, I have tried to configure them into something better. Anyway, from your part its a bit rude to revert them without explanations. I assume in some cases I may be wrong, but hope you give an reason (as edit summary) why you think the parameters are worse then the earlier ones. As earlier said I have analyzed the talk page and its archives before I decide what could be good parameters. BTW. I'm a mathematics student, so I'm not completely out how parameters interact with each other. --Kslotte (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, in some cases, the archiving was set up for reasons other than WP:SIZERULE. Hence, it is absurd to make those changes. If you wish to invoke guidelines, consider WP:BRD; you have been reverted, and have not provided a particularized reason for the changes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, setting minthreadstoarchive to any value greater than 3 is absurd. Setting minthreadsleft, which is probably what you intended to set, to any value greater than 2 8 is probably absurd, and clearly should not be done without specific consensus. Please revert all your changes and wait for consensus, or an RfC will be requested. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"minthreadsleft" was the intention. The edits have been done WP:AGF --Kslotte (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your adjustment of the manual archiving of Talk:The Gore Effect is also not appreciated. Please revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The archives differed in size. I made them into balance with about the same page length before implementing auto-archiving. Or are bots able to balance the past archives? I don't think so. --Kslotte (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Past archives are not supposed to be "balanced". I reverted your changes to the Talk:Tree shaping archives; please self-revert for Talk:Ghost and Talk:The Gore Effect archives. In any case, editing saved archives should never be made unless you're sure there wasn't a specific reason for the archive breaks and that none of the archive sections are referenced. If made recently (The Gore Effect), it may be possible to verify that they weren't referenced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, you don't have to revert dozens of edits, even if you find a few edits that you don't like. That's a bit rude. For example Talk:Glenn Danzig is a clear improvement of archiving. I have added the reason (see history) more clear this time. I understand the concern (links and refs) about re-factoring the archive. The re-factoring I have made is quite minimal and mostly preparations for implementing auto-archiving. --Kslotte (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been bold editing the configurations. I think no one is against that archiving is improved, and therefor asking for consensus is a bit over-bureaucracy. --Kslotte (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in some cases, the settings were the result of consensus discussions, and your change is going against what projects or editors previously decided. Your "improvements" in some cases are just not wanted. Imzadi 1979 → 20:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I fully accept that my changes are reverted in some cases. But Artur is reverting dozens without verifying the archive process. I don't like that. --Kslotte (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I don't like that you are changing the archive process without checking whether there was a consensus. I really do think it would be better for Wikipedia if all the changes were reverted, but I'm not going revert any more except where there was archive refactoring, or if I've previously been involved in editing the article. You shouldn't change any more except where you can establish consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As said before asking for consensus to change archive configurations is over-bureaucracy. I'm being WP:BOLD editing with descriptive edit summaries explaining the reason for the configuration change. I will take into consideration any reverts or comments and let the specific talk community have the last word on how to do archiving. Re-structuring past archives will not be done. I'm also only trying to edit configurations only in cases with clear reasons. --Kslotte (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement

Hello Kslotte, could you please revert your archive change on Tea Party Movement talk page? This article is very active and in fact the archiving was speeded up because we were having a problem with the size of the page. Just because there seems a lull at the moment, doesn't mean it isn't a heavy traffic page. Thanks so much, Malke2010 15:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I did this "reducing archive time from 14 days to 21 days", this means a reduced the archiving speed. In what direction do you want it to go? Thread to be left longer time on talk? If yes, then my change is in correct direction. --Kslotte (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. --Kslotte (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be quicker to archive as the page becomes very long, very quickly. Thanks.Malke2010 16:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. --Kslotte (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Or are you talking about the arching of thread "U of W study"? That was archived before I did change anyting. --Kslotte (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, nothing to do with that.Malke2010 16:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

PockBot

Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#PocketBot, what do you mean by, 'Such content should belong to WikiProjects?' EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian Conventions talk archive

Thanks for implementing automatic archiving for Talk:Christian Conventions, which had only been done manually before. The bot should prevent past implications that things were archived with some ulterior motive. • Astynax ^talk 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I still have to tweak the archival time to something suitable. Next archive process will soon run, let's then see the results. --Kslotte (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving mistakes

You created archives 4, 5 and 6 for Talk:HSL and HSV, but failed to link to archives 5 and 6. I've corrected this mistake, but would appreciate more care on your part in the future. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  06:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually archive bot did create those archives. It's a matter of a follow-up task that has to be done after bot archiving, since it is unknown how many archives will be created. --Kslotte (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: WP:PW newsletter

FYI, there's no such thing as a "subscription list" for the WP:PW newsletter - it's sent to anyone who is in Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants. In any case, yes, Self Preteder (talk · contribs) and several other inactive participants have been added to the "no spam" list and will no longer be receiving the newsletter. I hope this fixes your concerns. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There are still unactive user that receive the newsletter, for example this on 4 July. Configure it in such a way that only confirmed active users receive it. Currently inactive user talk pages are spammed. --Kslotte (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi. Setting Miszabot's minthreadsleft to 3 is slightly problematic, since it takes 4 sections to automatically generate a table of contents, and it's nice to be able to see at a glance what's on the page, without having to scroll all the way down.
—WWoods (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you right 4 has that benefit. I'll in the future use that as default value when implementing archiving. In the long run I think it would be good to reach a consensus how auto-archiving should be done, about what values should be used in what case. Currently its more a matter of taste how things is setup. --Kslotte (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm using this as edit summary when needed: "archive minthreadsleft = 4, let time take care of archiving, but still a list with toc to indicate that discussion hasn't died" --Kslotte (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your work with talkpage archiving...

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	It's reached the point where I simply ignore your talkpage edits, because I know they're going to be small-but-important improvements to archiving. Your work helps make discussions easier, and I know of no one else who is this diligent with archiving. TFOWR 12:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Talk:Tom Hanks/Archive index

Hello Kslotte, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Talk:Tom Hanks/Archive index, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Deletion of this page may be controvertial or is under discussion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —mono 23:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Talk:Whoopi Goldberg/Archive index

Hello Kslotte, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Talk:Whoopi Goldberg/Archive index, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —mono 23:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it the CSD G6 to be used here? Or what suits best? --Kslotte (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for assistance

On Talk:Glossary of ancient Roman religion. My coding sucks - thanks for fixing it. I'll try to finish the rest of the archiving tonight. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the archiving on the Cheshire wikiproject talk page -- I've been meaning to find out how to decrease the archive frequency for months, but you've beaten me to it. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Linking of references

Hi, on the Tree shaping talk [4] you suggested creating a sticky of the References for the list of potential names. As some editors still wish to talk about it, will you please link and sticky this list [5]. Thanks Blackash have a chat 15:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done as a tmbox. --Kslotte (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the box content. --Kslotte (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Franz Josef Strauss

Hello!
I noticed you archived the FJS talk page; did you see there was a section discussing archiving, which specifically said it shouldn’t be?
It’s certainly not worth putting it all back, but I’ve replaced that section, and added a section on the previous page history, to explain this. I’ve also split your archive into two; 164,000Kb is far too big for one page! I trust you are OK with these changes... Moonraker12 (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I noted those discussions, but since they were quite old and had quite vague reasoning I ignored them. There is other ways to deal with the naming issue, like placing a box with information in the header. --Kslotte (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I noted your move history section, good idea. --Kslotte (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving FYI

[6] The bot by default archives at least 2 threads at a time; it didn't archive that thread cause it was the only thread ready to be archived. This can be changed using the "minthreadstoarchive" parameter (or something of the sort). Rami R 19:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I usually I respect that parameter, to avoid history filling up with archiving messages. I did this manually since the talk page were among the longest on en.Wikipedia. And, reducing even a small bit will reduce the size into an better direction.

Talk page blanking

Hi Kslotte,

while I find user talk page blanking to be somewhat pointless and anti-productive, there is no policy against it. In fact, WP:OWNTALK explicitly states that "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages.." (followed by some discussion). Thus, this probably is not the best idea. Note that the page history is always available. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified WP:ANI, they probably know how to deal with it. --Kslotte (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Database reports archiving

Please just... stop. You're editing pages you shouldn't be, you're archiving threads that aren't resolved, and overall you're just creating a huge mess that someone else is going to have to clean up later. The archive index is fine, I guess. Leave everything alone, please. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, the auto-archiving was mis-configured that made the situation a bit more messier to revert. Sorry, for that. --Kslotte (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

re Template_talk:Notability#Smaller_notable_tag.3F

Hey,

Did you ever follow up on this? I have always thought there needs to be a tag of this nature to indicate that a certain factoid or stastic isn't notable/relevant to the topic. I will strongly support you if you puch for a tag of this nature. NickCT (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is on my "to-do list". I started to do some draft at User:Kslotte/Sandbox#Template:List_notable. Feel free to push this forward if you are interested in it. --Kslotte (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Kslotte. After a little research, I'm wondering if what I want is an inline Template:Off-topic tag. Perhaps I'll work on one. I'm really surprised something like this doesn't exist. It seems so fundemental. NickCT (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for all the help on 2010 Bolivia forest fires. Your copyediting is really helpful and for that I award you this:

		The Minor Barnstar
		Although many people make minor changes everyday they are often overlooked. Thank you for your copyediting of the page 2010 Bolivia forest fires. Mr. R00t Talk 18:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:WDCQ-TV/Archive 3

I don't understand why this page was tagged for speedy deletion. The stated reason was that it was a subpage of a page that does not exist, but Talk:WDCQ-TV does exist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have used the wrong speedy template. It should be G6 and the reason is "revert archiving; WP:TPG thresholds (10 threads or 50K) aren't met". --Kslotte (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged it with G6 now. --Kslotte (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving Thor page.

Hi, I noticed you archived the Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics) - the problems being (1) I cannot find that archive, and (2) you seem to have archived the new content and left the old content. Figure since you know where you moved the stuff, I'd ask you to fix it. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 01:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you see the archive box on the right with search? The oldest threads moved to archive 1 (2006) and the rest to archvive 2 (2006-2009). And left unarchived are threads from 2010. So, what is wrong? --Kslotte (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's see... I went to the page and saw that the last item on the page was 5:24 pm, 26 March 2010, Friday (5 months, 13 days ago). So, I've done some digging, because I was sure I'd contributed to the Talk Page since then, and here's what I've determined is missing. My second cup of coffee. Or my memory/mind (I'd like to think it's the second cup of coffee that's missing though, and if you dont agree, perhaps you could at least humor me and pretend) ;-) I'm confusing one of my edits or a user talk page chat about the article with a discussion on the a's talk page that didnt take place.

So with that, please accept my apologies for bothering you over my senility. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

NP --Kslotte (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive help

You recently fine-tuned the talk page archive for the "Christian Conventions" article. However, the article was moved to a new name recently and the talk page is now at Talk:Two by Twos. I tried copying over the contents of the old archives, and they now show up as links in the archive box. There is a redlink for "Index", however, and I don't know whether I did something wrong for that not to be active. Perhaps the index will be rebuilt automatically? Or did I do something wrong? If you have time, it would be great if you could take a look. • Astynax ^talk 00:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I did create a new archive index subpage and did put the old one for speedy delation. I didn't move the index, since sometimes it use cached information and make the index incorrect. Less risks with a fresh start. --Kslotte (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I did make the old archive index into a re-direct instead of deletion. --Kslotte (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you so much! • Astynax ^talk 16:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive settings

Do not just up and change archive settings for wikiprojects without discussing it with them. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm being WP:BOLD in these cases, but I provide a reason for it as summary. Feel free to revert with a good reason as summary, if I you or the Wikiproject community disagree. --Kslotte (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please be less bold and take care to note when you've already been reverted several times, such as at Hugo Chavez? If disputes are ongoing, talk pages may just have to be long, and 185KB is not awful-- see some arb case talk pages, or the size of some WP:FAC pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I did revert it. --Kslotte (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

index bot

Hi, thanks for letting me know that, I have removed it as I can do without it. When you get chance would you please have a look here and just confirm I have it correct, these bots are a bit mysterious to me. I am also trying to help a user who has a large page after not archiving for three years, I have added it and tweaked it , can you see any issues remaining that would stop it working there? Here it is. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Indexerbot code snippet removed correctly. I responded at Mtaylors's talk page about the archiving. --Kslotte (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Respect to you Kslotte, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I missed something. There was two clean-up steps still that I did for you: 1. Removing the link to the ouddated archive index page 2. Remove the outdated archive index page --Kslotte (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ARchive bot problem

I got the following message from :

== HBC Archive Indexerbot ==

[[User:HBC_Archive_Indexerbot/logs]] reports "Not writing to User talk:Supuhstar/Archive index as I cannot find permission (sourced from: User talk:Supuhstar)". Replace the [[User talk:Supuhstar/Archive index]] with [[User:HBC_Archive_Indexerbot#Instructions|initiation code]] or remove the code snippet from this page. Let me know if you need help. --[[User:Kslotte|Kslotte]] ([[User talk:Kslotte|talk]]) 12:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is, as it was successfully archived in User_talk:Supuhstar/Archives/2009/September. — Supuhstar * § 22:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not about auto-archiving, it is about archive indexing. You have a code snippet config (User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn...) on your talk page User talk:Supuhstar that tells the User:HBC_Archive_Indexerbot bot to write an index to page User talk:Supuhstar/Archive index. At that archive index page you have already put some content, that bot won't overwrite. You have to give permission to the bot by initiating the page (read bot instrcutions). Is your intention to have a archive index at User talk:Supuhstar/Archive index? I can help you. --Kslotte (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Length of long archive?

I couldn't find it on archiving help page. Could you put a hidden note on Talk:Jewish_lobby of how often it will now automatically archive. Or just tell me here and I'll do it. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Like this --Kslotte (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

[7] That was badly needed. Jujutacular ^talk 15:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving deadlines

In general, I don't see the point of increasing the archiving deadline beyond 3 months. Threads that have gone untouched that long are pretty clearly dead. And as long as the minthreadsleft is greater than zero, there's no risk that the bot will wipe the page bare. The last few long-out-of-date threads will just collect dust until or unless a new discussion starts.
—WWoods (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

On a not that active talk pages it can take a long time before someone respond. Take into account users that aren't actively following the talk page. We can have a bit longer archive time in situations where we have space on the page. One point is also when the minimum threads are reached an the notification lies to the user. Did you have some specific of my edits in mind? --Kslotte (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher archiving

Hi Kslotte, Please restore the archiving on Murder of Meredith Kercher to 7 days. This is actually a very active page. The article was locked for a long time but has now been opened to editing. Editors there might be temporarily fatigued, but issues are coming up with Amanda Knox that will be addressed and discussions can get quite lengthy very quickly. Slowing down the archive will make the page difficult to navigate. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm following that page talk page actively and will change the archive according to its activity. For the time being 14 days are ok, but if the activity increases it may be changed back to 7 days or 10 days. --Kslotte (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Walrus talk

Kiitos and tack for cleaning up the walrus talk page! Best, Eliezg (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Index

What is the point of an archive index? I notice you put that on the List of YouTube personalities talk page. I was just wondering. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 13:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Check yourself what possible benefit it is to find all thread listed as index. --Kslotte (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

request

Hi Kslotte: Could you please put an archive bot on Catholic views on Mary talk page? Can you archive it for every 7 days? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:TALKCOND conditions (15 threads or more then 70Kb) of archiving isn't yet met. Let the thread be left on the main talk page until the thresholds are met. No hurry to archive, because there is plenty of space left on page. --Kslotte (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive addition

Hi Kslotte, would you please do the honors of adding an archive to the Ed Miliband article, average type settings, discussion is growing large since he became the leader of the opposition in the uk. Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. I will follow the archiving progress and possible adjust it. --Kslotte (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, many thanks Kslotte. I will have a look and see for next time, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Judge Rotenberg Educational Center

I did it manually instead, if I understood your ES your objection isn't related to archiving perse, just the use of Misza. I'll check the page you refer to for my own elucidation. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:TALKCOND guideline is for both manual and auto archiving. But, no need to revert since the talk page was quite close to the thresholds. Manual is better then auto archiving in situations where the discussion is inregular, like the talk page in question here. --Kslotte (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Haitian cholera outbreak

I switched the redirect pages because of consistency. While true that the date is not required, please note that all the other local outbreaks have a date. This should be consistent throughout titles in the categorty. See Wikipedia:Name#consistency.jsfouche 13:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In other cases it may be needed because of distinguishing between outbreaks. --Kslotte (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, you are right, let's keep it more consistent. But I'm seriously thinking about bulk renaming to get the naming according to guidelines. --Kslotte (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN

the article should be ready now, ive seen a lot worst cases go up (like the current Myanmar animal)Lihaas (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

I notice you pop in and out of talk pages sorting out archiving, i was wondering if you had a moment free could you look at my talk page? I can`t figure out why it does not archive :o( mark (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Kslotte (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate very good of you :o) mark (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN/C

Those renominations are only cluttering the table of contents. The discussion should be left where it is so that everyone can see what points have been made and respond to them and to make it easier for admins to determine whether there's a consensus for posting. Splitting the discussion actually hurts the nomination more than it helps it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it OK to post again something that already have been archived and reached something more significant? --Kslotte (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "and respond to them". I assume you shouldn't discuss things in the archives. --Kslotte (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realised they'd dropped into the archives. Still, if an item's been nominated and rejected twice, it might be better just to let it die. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Both entries had history of support. The articles are now in good shape and new significant information has been revealed. --Kslotte (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2010 eruption of Mount Merapi

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archives

Hi - I've turned down the speedy deletion of this page for the present, as it's still transcluded on some of the talk page archives (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people/Archives). If you can sort this out, feel free to re-request the deletion. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouh, that was good you noted that. I will take a look how to resolve it. --Kslotte (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

What was the benefit of this [8]? Those archiving thresholds are just suggestions for when archiving a page MAY be helpful. It doesn't say "Do not archive pages smaller than this". Deleting the archives and undoing Miszabot wasn't really necessary, it could have stayed as it was. It's often helpful to initiate auto-archiving for pages that are likely to become large at some point. I don't see the benefit in waiting until there is a problem to c. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you're doing this on a lot of pages... please stop reverting auto archiving, the thresholds are not hard figures undoing auto-archiving is counterproductive. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious that a 6K page needs archiving? With 6K we aren't running out of space on the page. Compare this with some talk pages that may be 100-200K to get a perspective. Making an archive make it harder for users to find old discussions, when they have to look into two places (not one). Once archived the section discussion is ended. Maybe some want to respond to an archived section. --Kslotte (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Being proactive isn't needed, since we can deal with them when pages become large. See Wikipedia:Database_reports/Long_pages. --Kslotte (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make if it needs it or not? That's not the point. Who cares if someone starts auto archiving of a page that doesn't quite need it yet? It's not hurting anything to have auto archiving, one extra click is not going to hurt anyone, especially when it's clearly listed in the talk header and most discussions that haven't received any comments for 90 days aren't "live" anyway. However, going to the trouble of undoing it and deleting archives is completely unnecessary. Again, the threshold is a suggestion for when archiving MAY be started, not a hard and fast rule that must be adhered to. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Archival of WP .8

I applaud your efforts; however, 7 days is nowhere near long enough. Walkerma can't possibly keep up with that-- in fact, he often takes several weeks to review suggestions on that page. Several topics are two months old and have not yet been reviewed. I'm reverting your edit for now-- if you'd like to manually archive it based on which ones are clearly reviewed and complete, be my guest. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, that is fine. I expect that the talk page community to step in and revert my archiving suggestions where it is needed. --Kslotte (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not an adequate answer. People do not consult talk pages that frequently, and by the time they find the page has been archived it is extremely difficult to restore the archived material. Please seek consensus before setting archive parameters. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Fancy a job?

Before I became an admin, I used to make sure that, whenever an ITN item was posted, the nominator and updater got credit and the talk page was tagged. Since I've become an admin, I've found my time taken up by dealing with other things, like blocking vandals and dealing with the admin side of ITN and the Main Page, so I wondered if you'd be willing to take on the responsibility because it's important that people feel that their hard work is appreciated so they keep contributing to ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I may help on those things, but I take no responsibilities. I usually "fly around" at Wikipedia and help in places that I happen to like. I may be at ITN for a while until I move on to next thing. --Kslotte (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. Hope I didn't sound dick-ish. It really was just a passing curiousity. Grsz 11 22:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed too much?

You appear to have deleted some legitimate WP:TALK page contents [9]. Make sure you scroll. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouh, good you noticed it. I was a mistake. I will fix it. --Kslotte (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Kslotte (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center talk page

Hi Kslotte,

Could you change the archive time for Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center back to 60d from 30d?

The reason why the talk page is long is because people have a lot to discuss.

It would be kinda frustrating to see the discussions disappear in the middle of talking.

Thanks!

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverted for now. They don't disappear in middle of talking. 30 days mean the time of inactivity since last reply on the thread. And, you can still find them in the archives (can be linked to if needed). The talk page is getting long. Some user may have issues with loading time and navigation. Do you still think 60 days is needed? Next archiving will happen earliest 6th of January with 60 days. --Kslotte (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Kslotte. I appreciate you going to the talk page and getting editor consensus to change archive time. (: Getting us editors on SPLC to agree on anything is a miracle. :) --Kevinkor2 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Indexing

When adding the indexing bot, don't forget the first step:

“

1. First create a destination page (the one you want the index to be written to) and place the following text on this page: <!-- HBC Archive Indexerbot can blank this -->

   This will not be visible, as it is contained in HTML comment tags; this gives the bot permission to write to the page. You MUST create this page and place the tag on it, the bot WILL NOT create it for you automatically!

User:HBC Archive Indexerbot#Instructions

”

(Unless of course it's been upgraded to take care of this, which seems like an obvious improvement, but hey.)
—WWoods (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, I will create them with my bot (red links on log page) once Indexerbot does it next run. --Kslotte (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Kslotte (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, Kslotte. I know you mean well, but it isn't necessary to keep changing Talk:Halloween archive parameters. Today you've Bot created an index subpage to be bot-populated. However, one of these was already deleted within the last month, as unused and not needed over existing search config. Often regular page contributor's familiarity with a page means they can determine a suitable configuration. It's deletable as unnecessary at present.

Between you and Wwoods—who, don't get me wrong, both do sterling work organizing things often overlooked—it's changed from 14 days to 10, then back up from 14 to 30, then changing minthread levels etc, implementing Indexerbot/OptIn; and back, and forth.

Both Talk pages by size and Long pages database reports are utility not statistical reports. Statistical reports are simply used for informational value or historical informational value; they're not a "call to action".

The page seems to have come to your attention when it appeared (Nov 13) on Long Pages, once. But that was an exception. It's of mainly seasonal interest, and a prolonged discussion like that was out of the ordinary. An unintentional side effect of changes was discussion being drawn out, that would otherwise fade away. Again, I know you mean well. Honestly, the page is fine. –Whitehorse1 17:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Spencer (author)

I made a change on the archiving and left a discussion on the talk page.[10] Hope it is agreeable to you --or I would like to discuss this further.-Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

not crossing swords, honest

Just wondered, why you adjusted archive time on Painted turtle talk? We are actively editing and may generate a bunch more sections. We are just really humping and I think it's good the talk is long. I really see the whole kerfuffle getting archived in a month or so, when we pass FA. And page loads fine for me. Plus, the average reader, doesn't read talk, they read the article. Talk is for the workers. But honest, not crossing swords. Just we are busting our asses in there, writing an article, doing work. TCO (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Reason is simply about usage; loading time and navigation becomes hard with long talk pages. It is completly ok to revert my archiving edit. --Kslotte (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)