User talk:Scs/Archive/2014

''This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit.'' Other archives:

extremely hurtful
I find the current discussion under the crassness header extremely hurtful, please see the email I am sending you regarding it. μηδείς (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Just want to thank you for dealing with the mess at WT:RD. I was waving between closing and responding. Was writing a typical long response when I found you'd already closed it so I endorsed you closure to try to reduce the possibility of any complaints considering your nominal involvement even if your behaviour wasn't being discussed. Frankly reading what I was writing, closure was probably the best course of action since I suspect what I've said would have, if not pissed all 3, just been ignored (and not necessarily because they couldn't be bothered reading it). But the sum of it was I agree with you. Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the endorsement -- given the earlier accusations of improper closure by involved parties, I felt a little awkward closing it myself. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of signatures
Yours is still wikilinking your old user name. (Ummit instead of scs). NE Ent 22:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yoicks! I had no idea.  Thanks.  Fixed.  (I think -- but it'll take an edit to a page other than this one to be sure.) —Steve Summit (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

54 series
It's been pointed out to me that might be connected with a cluster of IP's trolling activities, a subject which you apparently commented on at the ref desk talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

January 31 Help Desk archive
The link to the January 31 archive, and the topics from the archive, do not appear here.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh! Thanks for pointing this out.  Something went wrong with the automatic archiving that day, and I had to do some of it by hand, and I didn't take care of that page properly.  Fixed now. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014 help desk archive
SCSbot is malfunctioning. See here and here.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A stupid little glitch which I don't always notice when it happens. Thanks for pointing it out. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Help desk archiving glitch
The bot has created Help desk/Archives/2014 April 26 and Help desk/Archives/2014 April 27 with only the header, and has not removed the content from the help desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Some actual content somewhere on the page is (due to the bot's simpleminded algorithm for such things) tricking the bot into thinking it has new messages, which stops it. I need to remember how to tweak the thing to be less diligent in looking for new messages. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All set, thanks for helping out with the one manual day. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Help Desk
Hey there! We've made a few formatting changes to the headers of the WP:AFC/HD and ScsBot no longer seems to be adding day headers or archiving the page at all... There is some discussion on the talk page of changing the way the Help desk is archived, and I would love your input on the matter. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation and the respective sub-sections. Thanks! — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 18:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Scsbot is apparently not archiving the WP:HD at the moment either. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * How long has the lack of archiving at AFCHD been a problem? If it's just been for the past week or less, it may simply be because I'm traveling, so archiving has been intermittent.
 * I'm pretty sure the Help Desk was last archived (by me) 2-3 days ago, although when (prodded by this very thread) I went to do a run tonight, I (or rather the bot) discovered that there was nothing to dom because JohnOfReading has once again done some manual archiving. --Steve Summit (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's been about 3-4 days and I actually archived AfC/HD manually this morning. Like I said above, and you can read in the discussion I linked, we're using a new template to show which of about half a dozen possible places which is part of the header and page layout changes. The reason this is an issues is because of those changes and that draft finding template, there are now about 6 (pf)ifexist: calls in each section.  This is an expensive parser function which means it can't have more than 500 calls on a page which is about 83 sections on the page.  I'm already concerned 7 days is too long a gap, and I've asked the project what they think about cutting it back to every 3 or 5 days.  Would love to get your feedback in that discussion I linked. :) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 23:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Update:, it's still not adding level 1 headers for the date nor archiving WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. I'm leaving it for now, but will archive days 9+ tomorrow to prevent issues from lack of archiving.  Please advise.  Thanks. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's working when it's working (that is, when I run it at all, which was only every three days or so over the past two weeks, due to my travel).
 * But I'm back home now, so archiving should return to a more normal schedule.
 * If it still looks like date headers aren't being added or content is backing up without getting archived, let me know.
 * I've commented in the thread about your other comments. --Steve Summit (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ref desk
Do you have a reason for this semi-accusation of trolling? If you do, let's here the evidence and I'll block him. If not, you could well have just driven away a good faith editor. You could have come to my talk page (or even e-mailed me) asking me to reconsider confirming his account instead of throwing it in the user's face.  Spinning Spark  19:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It was not intended as an accusation, although I concede it kinda looked like one.
 * And I did have reasons, althouth in hindsight I concede they were poor ones.
 * I have already apologized to the user, although I concede he may be driven away and I am partly to blame.
 * It all just sucks.
 * I'll post a retraction, explanation and apology shortly.
 * --Steve Summit (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * [P.S. In answer to your other question, I think you were joking, and "boots" is a pretty cute answer, but just in case, what I herd is this bot.]

Date headers
Hello. Just an FYI that the bot doesn't seem to be adding date headers on the refdesk, or at least isn't doing it consistently. I got us caught up. Does the semi-protection (again in place I see) break the bot? Matt Deres (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been traveling, so archiving has been sporadic.
 * Normal operations should resume tonight. Thanks for your help. --Steve Summit (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, and in answer to your other question, no, semi-protection shouldn't have anything to do with it -- the bot has more than a few edits, and had better be autoconfirmed by now! —Steve Summit (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Date headers removing
The other side, this time. When removing daily threads, bot does not clean up old empty daily sections: Possibly it wasn't design to do that, but I think it's a kind of work for a bot. THANK YOU for all your work on archiving WP:RD, HD et al. --CiaPan (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=613088140
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics&diff=next&oldid=613088140
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics&diff=next&oldid=613088201

Help desk archiving problem
I had to do this because the one question was sitting on the Help Desk with no date heading.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

19:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing.
 * Actually, in this case, the problem was not that the entry didn't have a date heading; the problem was that the original question wasn't signed.
 * The bot doesn't actually look at the date headings when archiving -- what it looks at is the dates in the signatures on the questions. But since the question had no signature and no date, the first date the bot saw was the one on the first answer, which was the next day, June 13.  If you hadn't manually archived that question, the bot would have, on its next run, along with the rest of the June 13 questions.
 * (Obviously this isn't a big deal one way or the other.)
 * —Steve Summit (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear it would have been archived the normal way. I just wonder why SineBot missed it.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •
 * , have you asked 's operator, about that?  I might go out on a limb and say it is because  has  that triggers the "ignore" feature of Sinebot unless the user specifically opts back in. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 12:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do that, thanks.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor issue in archiving for mathematics ref desk
Hi, Steve -- I thought you might want to be made aware of this inquiry regarding a small hiccup in the archiving of WP:Reference desk/Mathematics.  S n o w  talk 06:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Woops, I just saw that someone already broached the subject. Sorry for the clutter!  S n o w  talk 06:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Answered in the thread. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nonexistent help desk archives
Take a look here, here, and here and here.

I don't know how any of this happened but maybe you do. When the time comes to create each of these pages, will it happen like it is supposed to?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Those are the result of various glitches.
 * The monthly pages will get appended to, and may end up with redundant days, which if we're lucky I'll remember to clean up.
 * The daily pages will cause errors when the archiving bot tries to create them a second time, and when I see those errors, I'll reinvoke the bot with an option which allows it to overwrite an existing daily page. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Done, see edits like this and this for examples. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No new computing reference desk questions on July 20?
There is a red link to the July 20 archives. I was wondering what's actually supposed to happen here. It just happens I needed to look at a question I asked the next day.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I created it myself. I went through the history and found one "New section" in the edit summaries for that day. I had to sign the person's post. But this does bring up a question: what if no one asks a question?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I finally went back and looked at the logs on this one. By the time the bot did its work, there were indeed no entries for July 20 and therefore nothing for it to do.  That's not a particularly unusual occurrence, especially on the lower-traffic desks such as Language and Mathematics.  What happens is simply that the bot doesn't create an archive page for the empty day.  (The "previous" and "next" links on the archive nearby daily archive pages end up not working perfectly, I think, but it's not much of a big deal.)


 * As it happens, there had been a question asked on July 20 (the one you fished out and manually archived), but it had been deleted in this edit before it would have been archived. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

RefDesk archives
Hi Steve. I've been manually archiving (some) of the RefDesk. As you can see, I haven't been including the indices to the individual questions, but I know the bot has fixed that kind of stuff up before. One thing I did notice is that the templates seem to be incorrect - or maybe I'm not using them correctly. For example, we don't transclude the questions any more, but the templates showing up at the top say we do. Not sure what the deal is there. All my actions are in my contributions of course and I think I'm the only one doing it, but if you can't figure out what the hell I was doing someplace, please feel free to drop me an email or note on my talk page. If I've loused something up - which is likely as not - my apologies; the desks were just getting too long and unwieldy. If there's a better way to do this manually, please consider updating this page. As you can tell, I was really lost about what template to use when starting a new month... but I guess it pops up automatically. Matt Deres (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * p.s. I hope your trip went well. Being called away suddenly is not always a good thing, so I hope whatever it was turned out alright. Matt Deres (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * [partial answer] The message at the top of each daily archive page come from RD Archive header, so you can change the message for future archive pages by editing that. A while back I made an edit to HD Archive header for the same reason. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly keep that in mind (thank you!), but there must be another template that's supposed to be used - I doubt the bot is using the old header and then changing the bits. I'm thinking there's probably a newer one out there or some setting I'm too dumb to figure out. Or both. :) Matt Deres (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

are you _that_ Steve Summit?
just wanted to say I absolutely love your C FAQ. sorry if this is the wrong place Asmrulz (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure there's a wrong place for that kind of flattery. Glad you liked.
 * (I'm wondering if I can completely believe you, though, with a username like that... :-) ) —Steve Summit (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * :))) Asmrulz (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your understanding, Steve. Back in March, I instigated a no-direct-contact regime between Medeis and me until further notice, and I later asked that we not even refer to each other unless unavoidable. That's worked pretty well until recently. I will gladly resume that protocol the moment she stops making slanderous claims against me. I will not let them go unchallenged. Yes, I am a little worked up at the moment, due mainly to external factors. I can have a tendency to overdo my defences in the face of patent injustice being perpetrated against me or others. Sometimes people act in good faith, not intending to cause harm, but I take particular exception when I smell the faintest whiff of malice. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Refdesk archival of active sections
It looks like Refdesk sections are archived after 7 days, even if the discussion is still active. In that case, would you recommend just starting a new section and starting it with a link to the archived one (repeating every 7 days as necessary)? Or is there a better solution? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Generally less than 7 days, actually. There isn't an ideal solution.  Me, I'd just continue to edit the discussion on the archive page.  Anyone who's truly still interested will generally know to find it there. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, there seems to have been a hiccup with the bot. We're at 9 days for the Sci desk right now. Matt Deres (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. Working on that now. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)