User talk:Σ

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

total number of archived discussions

[edit]

Hello. I am not sure who is currently maintaining the bot, and who to ask this question/request (as you have been inactive here since 2 years).
Currently, I have a task to send out notifications for Teahouse thread/discussion archival (User:KiranBOT/Teahouse notification). For that task, it is crucial that Lowercase sigmabot III mentions the total number of discussions that were archived. For example, in this edit the bot archived 86 discussions in total, out of which 31 to "Archive 1246", and rest were to 1245. The edit summary says "Archiving 31 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1246, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1245". My request is, would it be possible to add the total number of archived discussions to the edit summary? ie, "Archiving 86 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1246, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1245", if it is a lot complicated, then would following summary be possible "Archiving 31 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1246, Archiving 55 discussion(s) Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1245"? —usernamekiran (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Enterprisey, The Earwig, and 0xDeadbeef: —usernamekiran (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I update the code at User:Usernamekiran/Lowercase sigmabot III/Source.py. I have not tested it, but I think it would need some minor testing/fixing. Would you guys kindly do it? —usernamekiran (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your solution with the yields will work correctly as you've written it. But either with your approach or a different one, this shouldn't be too difficult to fix. I'm swamped with personal things at the moment, but I've made a note to come back to this in a couple weeks if no one else takes a look. — The Earwig (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh. I was hoping it would work, or at least make it easier to find the actual solution. Thanks for the response, and for the help, it is appreciated a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a read with the original source code, and I am confused as to why the bot counts 31 in that case. It is supposed to count the number of sections it has removed, which should be correct. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Hazbin Hotel are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 15:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Dillard421: Which specific edit are you referring to? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You now, now that I have searched the history of that page 500+, I don't see any edits that you did. It must have been an error on my part. Please disregard. Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 03:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dillard421 this editor is not anew editor. [[User:StopLookingAtMe1|StopLookingAtMe1]] ([[User talk:StopLookingAtMe1#top|talk]]) (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Subject Removed

[edit]

Hi I'm a newer editor and wanted to understand why my talk subject on Intel was removed. I checked the section I was discussing and the same issues seem to remain. I'm not familiar with talk page etiquette and want to understand why it was removed. Was there a problem with the section or is there some other policy I wasn't aware of? Gyaruko (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyaruko: It was an old section satisfying the archiving instructions in the wikitext at top of the page:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Intel/Archive %(counter)d
}}
The deciding factor in this case was minthreadsleft = 2. Somebody had just started a third thread (section) on the page so your section was archived to Talk:Intel/Archive 1#Ultrabook Fund section looks dated by a bot operated by Σ. Nobody evaluated the content. See User:MiszaBot/config#Delaying or preventing archiving of particular threads for how to prevent it, but it had already been there for 8 months and would have been archived after 60 days ("60d" above) on a more active talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gyaruko The bot was clearly misconfigured (too aggressive). I have un-archived your topics and relaxed the bot config to only archive pages after a couple of years (it's a very low traffic talk page). –jacobolus (t) 11:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This bot removed recent discussions from multiple users about crazy reversion behaviour, yet left much older discussions untouched?

[edit]

Talk:Vegetarianism by country#lowercase sigmabot III removing evidence from the Talk Page of Aquatic Amience's strange behaviour preserving vandalism of the page AntiTambourineMan (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiTambourineMan: The older discussions in [1] had no signatures with a valid time stamp so the bot could not see their age. You can archive them manually or add a time stamp. The archived sections had no posts since 2023. They only stayed so long because the talk page has low activity. See User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo#Delaying or preventing archiving of particular threads for how to keep them even longer. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just stumbled across this by coincidence on a completely unrelated page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_first_human_settlements&diff=1283474477&oldid=1248967982
This behaviour is not helpful at all. These are valid points about problems with the article that have still not been addressed. They should be removed when resolved, not just because they are 6 months old. It doesn't make any sense to be archiving unresolved issues based on age, not to mention only 6 moths later on a talk page that is now empty as a result. It's not as if the talk page was cluttered. AntiTambourineMan (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AntiTambourineMan: As has been mentioned several times on this page, lowercase sigmabot III has no way of knowing if a discussion is unresolved; all it knows about is the elapsed time since the last post to the discussion. If you look at the top of Talk:List of first human settlements, it has a {{User:MiszaBot/config}} containing the parameter |algo=old(180d) which means that any thread older than 180 days (calculated from the most recent timestamp in that thread) is eligible for archiving. It also has |minthreadsleft=0 which means that leaving the talk page "empty" is also permitted.
In this case, the most recent timestamps of the two threads are 15:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC) and 13:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC), and 180 days after those are 15:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC) and 13:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC) respectively. Therefore, the archiving that occurred at 18:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC) and at 19:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC) was entirely correct.
Since you have done this it means that when the bot next passes by, it will immediately archive those two threads again, because they will still match the archiving criteria. This will in turn cause duplication in Talk:List of first human settlements/Archive 1, because when you restored the threads to the talk page, you did not also remove them from the archive.
If you don't like the archiving criteria, adjust those criteria. If you don't like "unresolved" posts to be archived, ensure that discussion has occurred within the archiving timeframe - such as by adding a post with a recent timestamp to each thread. Either way, don't complain to the bot operator about a bot that is doing exactly what it has been instructed to do. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't complain to the bot operator that their bot that their bot is doing more harm than benefit overall". This bot is doing such a destructive unhelpful job it'd be better to disable it entirely than to do nothing. If it can recognise not only how old a post is but also how many posts there are on the talk page, then yes we could mitigate it by adjusting both of those parameters on every page where it's being misused, but it's being misconfigured on so many pages that it's apparently doing more harm than good overall on this website, not just on one page. There may need to be built in limits to prevent such misconfiguration. AntiTambourineMan (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as long as the bot can't recognise whether an issue is resolved, even this would only mitigate the issue and not fix it, so maybe the bot is just fundamentally a bad idea. Manually archiving posts when they are resolved works fine. This is what the archive was made for. AntiTambourineMan (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the botop: please don't shoot the messenger. I'm just explaining why the bot did what it did. Bots are like any other computer program: they do exactly what they are instucted to do, even if the instructions are flawed. In the case of Talk:List of first human settlements, it was instructed to archive threads older than 180 days, which is precisely what it did. If you think the instructions are wrong, I'm not stopping you from amending them - they are the parameters of the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} template at the top of that talk page. I'm also not preventing you from removing the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} in its entirety, if manual archiving is what you want. But if you have suggestions as to how lowercase sigmabot III may be coded in order to distinguish resolved threads from those that are not, you may propose them here, and Σ may consider them. If you know Python, a read-only copy of the bot's source code is at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Source.py. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AntiTambourineMan You should add {{unsigned2}} or {{unsignedIP2}} as appropriate to unsigned posts, and then probably just manually archive those topics. If the bot is archiving topics too quickly on low-discussion pages, feel free to set the minimum archiving time to 2, 3, or 5 years, as appropriate. –jacobolus (t) 03:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I changed the minimum archive time to 2 years manually archived the unsigned old posts, and unarchived several recent topics for you. –jacobolus (t) 03:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]