This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, Misza. I've been trying to convert my antispam adminbot to use your eyebot framework, but am having a bit of trouble with it - and was wondering if you'd be willing to help me out here. Since it seems like you're like me and have been enjoying a bit of reduced activity, I wanted to know if it's OK to really start bothering you. :-) east.718at 02:26, April 1, 2008
I'm not exactly being less active by choice. Not long ago I got this thing called real life, you know... I would nevertheless be willing to help (as time permits) - just ask the question (here or via mail if you prefer) and we'll see when I get around to answer it. Миша1321:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a million! This is what I've got so far - I took out the threading and most of the remote control functions since they're not really needed for me. Right now it detects and reports page creations fine, but seems to refuse to do anything related to the wikipedia or userlib libraries. I'd appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction on fixing this. east.718at 01:59, April 2, 2008
MiszaBot II and archiving talk pages
Woukd it be possible to tweak it to recognise the date-stamp in my sig? RichFarmbrough, 11:16 1 April2008 (GMT).
Not directly, I'm afraid. But you could (if possible) add a regular timestamp to your signature, albeit hidden in comments. Миша1321:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that one solution would be to check that the archive destination is a subpage of the page to be archived? Ie ANI>>ANI/ArchiveXX. If it is not a subpage, then return an error and stop. How often is the desired destination not a subpage?AKAF (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hej Misza, czy nie zastanawiałeś się nad kandydaturą na biurokratę na EN-Wiki? Niedługo będzie masa roboty w zw. z wprowadzeniem SUL-u, na polskiej wiki głosowań na biurokratę się mnoży, a na en nie mamy niestety polskiego biurokraty:( Zawsze to jakiś prestiż. Pytałem się Piotrusa o to samo co ciebie, ale nie chciał. Ja za to formalnych wymogów na admina nie spełniam:) Alden or talk with Alden22:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Codesnippets
Are a wikian Codsnippets wikia cause i am and well it seem's that are very familar like the time i found penubag and Macys123 on Codsnippets my Codesnippets wikia username is Wiki Wiki Dogg 101 i will most likley respond to your message on metal wikia just metal.wikia.com/wiki/User:Wiki_Wiki_Dogg_101 and go to my contribs their not mine cause i will let you when i am ready ok so well also penubag is leaving wikipedia for a little while but will be back that's the new's right now. Demon Hunter Rules {UserTalkPage} 19:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Misza. I know you've been busy lately, but Evolution has been having some serious trouble with sleeper accounts vandalizing. Would it be possible to have a bot auto-revert the vandalism and then ping in a channel (any channel will do) with a direct block link? The vandalism is always replacing large parts of the text with Genesis -- pretty easy to spot. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MiszaBot
Resolved
Hi, the bot used to be archiving at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, but it doesn't seem to have done anything since March 24, and there are many threads on the page older than the 14 day cutoff. Any suggestions how we can "goose" the bot to start up again? --Elonka09:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Misza, but I notice that you have some archived Talk postings in User_talk:Habaneroman/Archive/2007. I'm not sure why there are none archived for 2008 yet. Perhaps those newsletter postings don't qualify for archiving. Since you had your account renamed in fall 2007, you should change this line in the MiszaBot configuration on your Talk:
archive = User talk:Ootmc/Archive/%(year)dSHOULD BE:
Do I need to request or sign up to have MiszaBot III archive my user talk page? I had placed {{User:MiszaBot/config}} (with proper parameters, I thought) on the page about a little more than a week ago and thought from the instructions that that was all that was needed. Any info appreciated. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Misza goes to archive a page and it has a blacklisted link in it, will Misza be unable to archive the page? Trying to figure out if a blacklisted link is why the bot hasn't archived Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films in awhile. Did a manual archive, removing the link, to try to fix, but curious to see if that was indeed the issue. Collectonian (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Misza (me) doesn't archive pages; MiszaBot (my bot) does. And of course it won't - no reason why it should be able to bypass the spamfilter. Миша1313:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hej mógłbyś zabezpieczyć Armia Krajowa z powodu wojny edycyjnej Proszę akurat Ciebie a nie Piotrusa o zabezpieczenie tego artykułu ponieważ też jesteś Polakiem, a po drugie Piotrus jest stroną zaangażowaną w spór w tym artykule, a Ty jesteś osobą bezstronną. Jeśli możesz odpisz na mojej dyskusji. Rodzaj zabezpieczenia: edycja tylko dla adminów. Alden or talk with Alden08:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't archive auto-signed comments
On my talk page (link in sig), there's a post that wasn't originally signed, that was automatically signed by a bot right after, that's not being archived. I think it's a bug in the archiving bot. Is it known already? I see that you're rewriting the bot. ETA on that? Could you make sure the rewritten bot doesn't have this bug? If it'll be long before you release the rewritten bot, could you put a fix in the current one?
— Mini-Geek(talk)11:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot ws excellent in doing an archive of my talk page, but nothing since, despite threads passign the archive by date. I presume this is my fault, but could you advise? Thanks. MikeHobday (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One such discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD G6 clause "cleaning up redirects". I've also proposed that anyone who wants to expand the current criteria for speedy deletion of redirects do so over there. For you specifically, though, what can be done about the code you publish conflicting with Wikipedia standards? What is to stop other admins running the code and "cleaning up redirects" without realising that there are objections? This is why admin bots need open discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I haven't provided any licensing information in my files. Yet by default I use the MIT License which, among others, states that "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND", a.k.a. "use it at your own risk" - there is no way to actually prevent anyone from running any code - disclaimers or not. It's the spirit of open sourcedness. Additionally, let me reiterate: admins always run adminbots on their own risk and are accountable for each and every sysop action they perform. Миша1315:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh... I knew it was gonna be something simple! Thanks for that. Is that mentioned in the archiving setup page? Might save you a bunch of msgs if you added a sentence about topics with spaces, unless of course, it's already in there! Thanks again. -- Maelefique(talk)15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alden Jones pointed my attention to the article 3 threads above. I was slightly hesitant few hours ago but your recent fire exchange with Darwinek has put me over the top. Миша1314:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you hope to achieve by this pp-protect? If an article requires a pp-protect, then I would say it also requires to go back to the sandbox since it obviously failed the B-rating for which it was nominated.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Misza, I would like to point out that when a single user is adding unreferenced claims and revert warring - breaking 3RR! - over them (Talk:Armia_Krajowa#Soviet_partisans_largest.3F), the best solution may not be to protect the article (keeping the version with an unreferenced dubious claim) but to deal with the (single) user who violated 3RR ([3], [4], [5], [6]). PS. For the record, I am not requesting a block - Mrg3105 is an otherwise good editor, that he went too far here should not prevent him from contributing to talk or other pages. But protection is not needed, just a reminded that he should watch the 3RR.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed to me that there are at least two editors ont "that side", as M.K reverted to the current version. That's why I reasoned that this should be stopped before mode editors step in on both sides and the deispute brews into a full-fledged war with a nationalist background. It is always sad when an article gets protected because of a few editors but experience tells that it encourages sides to cooperate (in this case, providing sources backing their claims perhaps?). Regarding 3RR, I'm not the type that counts those reverts down to a milisecond, understanding that people get swayed by the heat of the moment. Миша1315:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you, however consider this: protecting the article in the version preferred by the editors who have failed to cite their references is hardly going to make them do anything - their version is now safe from being reverted back, so why should they do anything more? After you protected the article, I have started a new section on talk asking for references for the dubious claim (do note we have plenty of refs to the contrary in the article and on talk already); there is so far no response with refs, but instead more ORish research - plus bad faith about you (due to your Polish background). Please note that there is nothing I can do: I have already presented several refs here disputing the unreferenced claim that led to this edit war. How long are we to wait, protecting the version of the article that violates WP:OR and WP:V, if - as I predict - the other side will not present any references (they already had two days to do so). Do also note that the article in the version without those ORish claims have passed GA and mil hist A-class review. PS. All that said, I also have a final question: once we lift the protection, whenever this happens, how do we stop those editors from edit warring and inserting their unreferenced text? This is why I'd prefer warning them - which may make them rethink their disruptive behavior - rather then protecting the version of the article which only makes them satisfied.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr, you are disingenuous. Firstly I had not broken the 3R. Secondly, it is blatantly obvious that your suggestion "to deal with the (single) user", namely myself, is your idea of getting out of a discussion you don't want to be in. That's an interesting tactic; if you don't like the message, just "kill" the messenger. Where have I seen that before?
The first source I questioned, who is a retired professor and a specialist on Polish-Soviet relations with other published works, immediately agreed with my proposition, and corrected her own notes. For your benefit I will contact each and every one of the editors of the sources you site, though some (like Oxford University Press) do not allow direct contact with authors (just heard from history and social sciences editor today).
I have heard the "disruptive behavior" rhetoric before, but have you read WP:SYN? It is not disruptive to question claims even IF they are referenced. That is the point of article assessment - to discuss it based on its merits. In the academia its called peer review. If you can't handle it, I suggest you find yourself a different hobby.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keeping an eye on the issue (on the talk page at least) and so far I am glad that any discussion at all is taking place. Most specifically, I'm looking forward to the summarizing thread and how it concludes - my impression being that the unverified claims can (and will soon) be removed. If further warring (by any side) continues after this point, I might resort to other means of policy enforcement and/or take an active role as a mediator. Миша1318:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the second issue got resolved, I hope. The first one, alas - is still going on, with one side failing to present any sources to back them up, but insisting on adding the NPOV tag to the article. Several neutral editors have so far commented on talk that they find the article neutral, I don't know what can be done - one side, we have an overwhelming consensus of editors and on the other, a dedicated one or two who just won't give up and will keep restoring the tag till... I don't know what.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which "unverified claims" you refer to, or whom you are going to apply WP:BP to, but go easy with your threats.
You are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but your administrative "abilities" will not conjure up better sources, or clearer historical data. I also don't need any mediation. There is no dispute, other then the epistemological one.
I don't need any summarising disputes to restate for the umpteenth time what I have already said elsewhere. Anastasia was called in, and she had kindly provided the sources to back up my statements based on general knowledge. If you Piotr can't accept this, then there is very little I can do about it, particularly since the recent declaration by another editor that all Soviet historians are not to be taken seriously.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Chalogo1.png
Hi Misza. Last year you deleted Image:Chalogo1.png as lacking fair use information. Could I ask you to undelete this image so that I can add the fair use information? Thanks in advance. PowersT17:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that mediation is always a better solution then just putting the discussion off for a few days. This is not the case of a dispute though, but points made by myself relevant to the facts, or claims, and layout as well as language use in the article. Its not something that was likely to change after a few days, or weeks, etc. The English rendering of Misza made me think you were from Poland, and somewhat suspicious of motives. Nationality however really has no bearing on the discussion here, other then the fact that many sources used are in Polish, and therefore really need to be quoted and translated, at least in talk, if requested. What I really didn't appreciate is the use of your admin privileges without any discussion in talk.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a drink on me.True, although I have removed what abuse I could! I apologise again. Thank you very much for your help, even though I haven't used it. I'm afraid that the simple truth is that I'm not very good with computers; I managed to get Werdnabot to work and it worked brilliantly until January this year, when it suddenly stopped and, as you can see, my Talk page has rapidly filled up with the usual abuse/ complaints. The fault is not with your Bot, it's just that I'm too thick to work it! Best wishes, --Major Bonkers(talk)14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to install viewSource, but it has changed nothing. I have logged out and then in. I have closed my browser (Firefox, v. 2.0.0.14). Nothing gets it to work. What should I do? --SMP0328. (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. When I started my computer today and went to Wikipedia, viewSource was functioning correctly. I guess I should have rebooted my computer. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you change MiszaBot I so that it follows WP:ARCHIVE a bit more closely, please? The {{talkarchive}} tag should be at the top and bottom of an archive page, and an {{archive-nav}} tag with the appropriate archive number should be included on the archive page as well. Also, the talk page's {{archive box}} should be updated when a new archive is added. I just had to manually fix those things elsewhere, so it would be nice if they were included in the bot. Thanks. -- HiEv17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is put on top of the page is controlled by the archiveheader parameter. {{archive box}} has a parameter auto which makes it update whenever a new archive is started. Handling an extra footer of the page is too much of a hassle for me for too little gain, sorry. Миша1318:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving question
Hi, your bot has been archiving my talk page. In its latest run, it put "ARCHIVE FULL" in the edit summary. Will it automatically change the parameter to start the new archive page, or do I manually need to set it? Thanks, AletaSing13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duh! I noticed and fixed that somewhere halfway through the delivery. Sadly, I don't really have time to make and run a bot that would remove that extra text - I'll just have to make a more thorough review on the next delivery. Миша1317:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving of my Talk Page
Hi Misza13 ;). A couple of days ago, I added the config template to my talk page. I've clearly done something stupid, or am misunderstanding the config template, but I expected the top thread on my talk page to be archived today (being older than 30 days), but MiszaBot II has passed the I's now... if you've got a mo, could you glance over it for me, and tell me what I've done wrong? Thanks! TalkIslander14:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scrub that - it was me being stupid. I set it to archive a minimum of two threads, but only one was older than 30 days. Appologies for wasting your time ;). TalkIslander15:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
I saw your name on my watchlist and remembered you as the user who welcomed me to Wikipedia back in July. I just want to say thanks for welcoming be back then and helping me become the user that I am today. STORMTRACKER94 Go Irish!19:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am desperately trying to make myself clear on this issue, but apparently I keep being misunderstood. Please fathom the following concept: the line with the text =Resolved notices= is the last line of the ==second level== thread that precedes it. That's how the bot sees the page at the moment, and until I finish the rewrite (which I don't have time for recently), there's nothing that can be done about it. Миша1312:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
German username block
I think I just blocked a related one. could you chime in here: [8] if you know what's going on, and review my block of the other account? --barneca (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. MiszaBot I has been creating large numbers of almost-empty archives on Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed recently. The page is insanely voluminous which had caused the bot problems in the past. Additionally, checking the page history, I found that this change was recently made to its settings. If you could let me know what settings to set up for maximisedly-bulletproof operation of the bot for a high volume talkpage, I would appreciate it. Thanks. HrafnTalkStalk15:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does it help if parts are manually archived, or would that confuse the bot even further? The page there is getting over 450k. --Merzul (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot use; feel am stupid
Resolved
I've tried copying configs from the Talk pages of other users. I've read all of the instuction page. I've tried manually creating an "Archive 1" page. I have run out of ideas. Why does the bot do nothing? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK13:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the deletion log and noticed you deleted a picture I uploaded here because it had no copyright status.Within deleting it,you do realize I have no idea how to copyright.Owlwinds (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What image? Please don't make me guess. Also please post messages properly instead of breaking the layout of my page. Миша1321:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of sock usertalk page
A long while back you deleted this page. This is a sock and there was evidence on the page. Is there a reason the page was deleted other than that it (apparently incorrectly) showed up in CAT:TEMP? If not, can we undelete it? The user has showed back up and made further edits. I'd prefer to restore, blank, tag, and possibly lock the page. But you deleted so better to ask you first in case you know something I don't. ;-) --Doug.(talk • contribs)02:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's now archiving inactive sections all right, but it isn't cutting them from the Talk page, or updating the counter. Of course, the poor bot may simply be choking on the sheer size of the thing.
Nope. Oddly enough, the bot receives edit conflicts on archive pages (because they were deleted - the framework thinks it was *just* deleted). Миша1317:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question
I can't seem to make the archivebot.py working right. Can you give me an example syntax? Not the archivebot.py [OPTION] [LINK(S)] but the real syntax that one will use to make the bot archive something. I plan to use is at tl wiki. --FelipeAira04:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is the real syntax. Anyway, the simplest would be:
