User talk:Σ/Archive/2020/October

I posted at Talk:Anarchy: earlier today
and it had been archived by tonight. Something needds some retooling. Fast. Carptrash (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you to Talk:Anarchy. No, whilst one thread (including one subthread) was, yours was not and may still be seen at Talk:Anarchy. Why do you think that it was archived? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I just missed it, sorry to you and to your . . . ....... friend. Carptrash (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Archiving
Be great if you could leave my talk page alone. Thanks. - Seasider53 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your talk page is being archived because the page has  which has been there since  by yourself, just over two weeks ago.
 * Tip: if you don't want your page to be archived by a bot, don't set it up for bot archiving. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Can you please turn off your fucking bot. As mentioned in a previous revert, it's archiving reports at AN/I that haven't been there for three days. JG66 (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please tone down your language.
 * If you edit Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and examine the top matter, you will find a which contains the bot configuration. One of the lines has old(72h) which means that any thread with no posts for at least 72 hours is eligible for archiving.  that you reverted occurred at 03:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC); and 72 hours back from that is 03:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC). Therefore, any thread whose most recent timestamp is earlier than that was eligible for archiving. For the record, the bot archived nine threads, as follows:
 * {|class=wikitable

!Thread name ||Most recent timestamp
 * AnOrionPicturesRelease25 ||13:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 67.61.89.32 ||18:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Phil Bridger ||20:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Persistent promotional edits and block evasion at Karnal ||04:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Vandalism, socking, NPA violations and abuse ||20:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * RFC closure review ||13:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:5.186.116.1 ||21:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant image ||00:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Carliertwo ||03:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * }
 * Which of these threads was archived in error? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , fair point, well put. Σ, my apologies. And it had been in my mind to come back here and remove the comment – I'm sorry for forgetting to do that.
 * I guess my complaint is: why archive the reports so quickly – why can't they stay up there for longer? Three days is nothing. All a serial offender needs to do, whether at AN/I or /EW, is hold their breath and there's a chance they'll get off the hook. Unfortunately, I've seen this happen twice now with the same user. Either that or have some sort of checking system for when an admin "takes" the report, so that any report that remains untaken/unchecked can stay on the page rather than being swept away as if it has been addressed and the matter's closed. JG66 (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The archiving interval used to be a lot shorter, it's been as brief as 24 hours (for instance in April 2015). It is altered occasionally, such as from 60 hours to 72 hours with at 03:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC) by, see this AN thread. AN is not really the right place to get it increased though - you should really seek consensus at WT:ANI. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant image ||00:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Carliertwo ||03:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * }
 * Which of these threads was archived in error? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , fair point, well put. Σ, my apologies. And it had been in my mind to come back here and remove the comment – I'm sorry for forgetting to do that.
 * I guess my complaint is: why archive the reports so quickly – why can't they stay up there for longer? Three days is nothing. All a serial offender needs to do, whether at AN/I or /EW, is hold their breath and there's a chance they'll get off the hook. Unfortunately, I've seen this happen twice now with the same user. Either that or have some sort of checking system for when an admin "takes" the report, so that any report that remains untaken/unchecked can stay on the page rather than being swept away as if it has been addressed and the matter's closed. JG66 (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The archiving interval used to be a lot shorter, it's been as brief as 24 hours (for instance in April 2015). It is altered occasionally, such as from 60 hours to 72 hours with at 03:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC) by, see this AN thread. AN is not really the right place to get it increased though - you should really seek consensus at WT:ANI. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess my complaint is: why archive the reports so quickly – why can't they stay up there for longer? Three days is nothing. All a serial offender needs to do, whether at AN/I or /EW, is hold their breath and there's a chance they'll get off the hook. Unfortunately, I've seen this happen twice now with the same user. Either that or have some sort of checking system for when an admin "takes" the report, so that any report that remains untaken/unchecked can stay on the page rather than being swept away as if it has been addressed and the matter's closed. JG66 (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The archiving interval used to be a lot shorter, it's been as brief as 24 hours (for instance in April 2015). It is altered occasionally, such as from 60 hours to 72 hours with at 03:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC) by, see this AN thread. AN is not really the right place to get it increased though - you should really seek consensus at WT:ANI. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Horse slaughter&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Spam blacklist hit produces unexpected behavior
At Talk:Maratha (caste) Lowercase Sigmabot is acting strangely. It seems to be trying to archive a thread that has a link to a site on the title blacklist, which prevents the edit from being saved. The bot then posts the error in the edit summary, but the important parts are cut off, and it increments the archive page counter despite having not archived anything. Does anyone know how to resolve this? — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * should let it through. Basically, by removing the http:// part, it's no longer a link so shouldn't be tested against the spam blacklist. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And it . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)