User talk:Σ/Archive/2021/February

A goat for you!
lapalpalpdlpfla

Isapvito (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC) 

Problem with bot "Lowercase sigmabot III"
Bot does not check for active RFC headers before archiving discussions. This needs fixing. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not supposed to. A bot cannot examine a thread to see what type of thread it is, nor what is under discussion, all it can do is look for timestamps. If the newest timestamp that it finds is more than a certain age (that age being specified in the old(5d) parameter), the thread is eligible for archiving. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also: I presume that you refer to [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lowercase_sigmabot_III?offset=20210105042359&dir=prev&limit=2 this pair of edits], of which you ? Please note that by not reverting both of Lowercase sigmabot III's edits, there now exist threads that are both in the live talk page and in the archives. This is a problem, and not the first time that you have caused it, either. If you look at the of Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323, you will see that threads titled 'Tapol bulletin', 'House of Parliament raw data for dates of birth of living people', 'Irish Times and Irish Examiner', 'RFC: "Jihad Watch", should it be deprecated as a source?', 'Are these estimates reliable?' and 'Daily Kos election predictions' all exist twice in that archive, and moreover, all six of them may also be found at . Why do you think that we need three copies each of six discussions? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it ought to check for RFC tags and see if the RFC is awaiting closure, or just skip over RFC sections. I shouldn't have to know some super-obscure tagging to prevent the bot from malfunctioning. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously if the bot is "smart" enough to look for the "User:DoNotArchiveUntil" text, it ought to be able to look for the  string just as easily. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, if the bot knows how to detect that kind of template it should also know how to detect RfC tags. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bot coders save us from a lot of manual work. Let's not annoy them with terms like "malfunctioning" when a bot doesn't do everything we would like. RfC's can theoretically be open forever per Requests for comment. Legobot removes rfc when an RfC has run for 30 days per Template:Rfc, e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=988715563&oldid=988642870 here]. Ideally the section shouldn't be archived before that. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If the bot messes up, please call me out. I am hardly infallible. That said be sure that the bot is actually messing up before coming here. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 03:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you feel that threads at Reliable sources/Noticeboard are being archived too soon, adjust the old(5d) parameter. Five days is a very short period of time when you consider that some people are only able to edit on one day each week. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a bit pedantic, but the bot is actually not smart enough to look for the "Do not archive until" text. All the bot does to determine whether a section should be archived is look at the timestamps in the section, and DNAU works by adding a timestamp that is very far into the future. The "Do not archive until" part is explanatory, but irrelevant. That said, the extra coding work to add the  check is minimal. —  The Earwig   talk  03:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is correct. Additional work to add archivenow or archivenever functionality can in principle be done but requires more effort and more BRFAs than I am able to commit to at the moment. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 03:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've had to undo premature archives of RfCs twice now. Please fix it - it should just be a matter of checking to see if the RfC template is used within the text that is about to be archived. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Legobot will now use to instruct LCSB to start the archiving countdown at least 5 weeks (estimating a week for RfC discussion to happen and another week for the close) after the RfC has officially started, see  for an example. Thanks to Σ for putting together the code for it as well as Earwig for advising. Legoktm (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope this problem is fixed: I started a talk section about the Brexit Party's Political Position, which generated some interesting and varied discussion up (and still hadn't resolved what to do about the infobox) to the middle of January, and this Bot archived it! Even 5 weeks seems like too short a time before archiving, as many issues remain dormant for much longer before becoming live again.BobBadg (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Roger Stone
Your bot is repeatedly archiving part of Roger Stone talk page. I have no idea what purpose this has and why it does that. Can you make that bot stop? --FantinoFalco (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The archiving settings for Talk:Roger Stone are  Here, old(30d) means that when archiving is carried out, any thread older than thirty days is eligible for archiving; 1 means that at least one thread can be archived; and 2 means that a minimum of two threads are to be left behind. Of the three threads presently on the page, The lead, again was last posted to at 16:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC); Pardoned was last posted to at 20:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC); and We already dealt with this was last posted to at 03:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC). The earliest of these is Pardoned, which is 32 days old, so that is the one selected for archiving. The bot is operating correctly.
 * Also, if you revert the removal of the thread from the main talk page, you must also revert the addition of the same thread to the archive; since you have failed to do that, there are now three copies of the thread concerned, two of them being at Archive 2. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * why would threads old than 30 days be archived? That doesn’t make sense. Is that a Wikipedia rule? --FantinoFalco (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why should it be a Wikipedia rule? It's a rule specific to Talk:Roger Stone, which as I explained above, has old(30d). It has had this for almost 13 years, ever since by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are free to change archiving settings, or use Do not archive until, but please don't edit war with a bot doing what it's told. Help:Archiving a talk page says: "Article talk page threads should not typically be archived in less than 30 days except for very busy talk pages." It doesn't recommend exactly 30 days. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User Interaction Analyzer for CIDR ranges
Hi Σ!

Is there any way to treat a CIDR range as a single user in the interaction analyzer? -Mys_721tx (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SIGMA
Template:SIGMA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians with Labs accounts has been nominated for renaming
Category:Wikipedians with Labs accounts has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)