User talk:Σ/Archive/2014/December

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:S.L. Benfica
The bot isn't archiving the sections Gilles removed and Away "colours". SLBedit (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Archiving bots are very picky about timestamps, and won't archive a thread that has no recognisable timestamp in dmy format. The first of these two threads had an unusual timestamp (it included  markup and was also in mdy format); the second was unsigned.  should fix them. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The bot hasn't archived Away "colours" so I added . SLBedit (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I manually archived the 'Away colours' post from 2009 because, with minthreadsleft=4, it wasn't going to archive anyway until a new thread was started. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you mean - there was nothing wrong with the timestamp (and I'm puzzled why you altered it to 21:38 when  was timed at 20:38). It didn't archive because there were four threads on the page, and as noted by EdJohnston the User:MiszaBot/config has 4. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That diff shows "Revision as of 21:38, 24 October 2009". I changed it because history page shows 2 entries "(cur | prev) 21:39, 24 October 2009‎ VEO15 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (39,802 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Away "colours") (undo | thank)" and "(cur | prev) 21:38, 24 October 2009‎ VEO15 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,767 bytes) (+111)‎ . . (→‎Away "colours": new section) (undo | thank)". SLBedit (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For me, the diff shows "Revision as of 20:38, 24 October 2009"; and the page history shows "(cur | prev) 20:39, 24 October 2009‎ VEO15 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (39,802 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Away "colours") (undo | thank)" and "(cur | prev) 20:38, 24 October 2009‎ VEO15 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,767 bytes) (+111)‎ . . (→‎Away "colours": new section) (undo | thank)".
 * At, I have my time zone set to "Use wiki default (UTC)" - I'm guessing that yours is set to somewhere in Europe (but not Ireland, Portugal or the UK). -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:S.L._Benfica/Archive_1&diff=635537693&oldid=635400758 Corrected]. SLBedit (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I restored the sections order before the archive. Why did the bot change it? SLBedit (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming that your concern is with the archiving of the threads titled and, the bot added the threads at the bottom of the archive because that is what archiving bots always do - none of them sort the threads into any order, original or otherwise.
 * As for, which was manually archived by (but which would have been automatically archived if the bot had been left to do it when there were five threads on the page), I expect that EdJohnston merely followed the normal procedure for archives - add threads at the bottom. -- Red rose64 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I initially thought but then I realized were more threads archived with a different order from the original. Weird. SLBedit (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The bot looks for the oldest thread on the page, and moves that from the page to the bottom of the archive. Then it looks for the second-oldest, and moves that to the bottom of the archive. Then the third-oldest, and so on until there are only four threads left, at which point it saves the page and the archive.
 * When deciding how "old" a thread is, the bot doesn't look at the timestamp of the original post, but looks for the most recent timestamp in the thread (this is usually, but not necessarily, that of the bottommost post in the thread). -- Red rose64 (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ten Lost Tribes
Greetings. The bot created Archives 3, 4 and 5 for Talk:Ten Lost Tribes. A link to the first of these is not showing up in the box on the basic page. Can you correct this, or advise me on how to do so? Hertz1888 (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not the fault of the archiving bot. The problem is that - which is a subtemplate of  - doesn't look for every possible archive number, but does it in threes. It assumes that if Archive 1 doesn't exist, then Archive 2 and Archive 3 won't exist either; it starts its next search at Archive 4 - which it finds, along with Archive 5, and so it just displays those two. My suggestion: move Talk:Ten Lost Tribes/2004 Archive and Talk:Ten Lost Tribes/2005 Archive to Talk:Ten Lost Tribes/Archive 1 and Talk:Ten Lost Tribes/Archive 2 respectively, and dispense with the first of the two . -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your fix worked, immediately. That's all it took. Problem solved. Thank you very much. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.


 * We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
 * In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
 * The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States Same-sex marriage map
here is the RfC Prcc27 (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Archives and RFC
Sigma, I could have sworn I already posted here, but apparently I forgot. Lowercase Sigmabot archived an RFC that still had an active RFC tag. The discussion about this issue is now primarily happening at User talk:Legobot and also Template talk:Rfc. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bot does not care whether discussion has RfC tag or not. Bot only archive when discussion is older than pre-set old date. Use {{subst:DNAU}} if you don't want the thread archived. &mdash; Revi 04:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Minor bot issue
Lowercase sigmabot III archived the include to a GA review here. Prhartcom (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is, because the last timestamp on the section is calculated, not the transcluded GA1 review. (Bot has no way to see GA1's timestamp...) &mdash; Revi 14:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The GA Review is active and open. Can the bot be modified to check for that before archival? Prhartcom (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, as checking all the transcluded templates and subpages will cause a big lag (and unsure if it is even possible). Only way to prevent archive is, as I said above, using {{subst:DNAU}}. &mdash; Revi 15:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The bot archives from one Level 2 section heading to the next Level 2 heading. When finding where the next one is located, the bot doesn't look inside transcluded pages; it assumes that they are part of the section in or below which they appear. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Achriving
Hi there. I was wondering if this bot could start archiving my talk page? I tried with the old bot which does not work. Thank you! Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed malformed template. Bot should visit your talk page and archive sections tomorrow. &mdash; Revi 06:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Governor-General of Australia
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Governor-General of Australia. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why
What is the point of having talk pages if your bot (from what I gather) seems to randomly remove stuff from talk pages to an archive? I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesenadam (talk • contribs) 09:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Read Help:Archiving talk pages. &mdash; Revi 09:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Um thanks. Well no, the talk pages weren't over-long. Very short. The bot removes, it seems, any addition to the talk pages. e.g. the Nietzsche one. Very annoying. I tried turning it off but apparently I don't have authorization. You say you won't be able to reply to messages until next year. I have noticed it doing this for some time. Please make it stop. Thanks. Yesenadam (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, he will not stop the bot, (if he stops, I will run an alternative bot to do same thing) and if you don't want your talk page being archived, you can 1) remove bot template or 2)put {{subst:DNAU}} on your section. &mdash; Revi 09:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Different talk pages have their own individual settings, which can vary greatly. You haven't actually said which talk page is being archived, but assuming that by "the Nietzsche one", you mean Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche, that has the code  near the top. This instructs the bot to archive any thread that has not been posted to within the last thirty days, provided that at least four threads are left behind  after archiving. In the case of , it was last posted to on 11:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC), which was 30 days 12 hours 37 minutes earlier.
 * it's not a problem with Yesenadam's own talk page, because that has [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yesenadam&action=history never been archived by a bot]. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)