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.
Could the bot leave the header's spacing alone? RichFarmbrough, 21:33 3 December 2008 (UTC).
No, it couldn't, sorry. It resets them to the default standard though. And it's not even a specific effort, just a side-effect of its design. Миша1322:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bot only works with standard level 2 headers. I'm planning to support an arbitrary level at some point in the future, but not very soon, I'm afraid. Миша1319:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The key for the /Closed page is d94d4be797a8eea2c4fec40372c6d3cd and for the /Pending it's ae3e937f608b8e9ff3fa1bf81dcd6010. Миша1319:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I noticed you opposed my candidacy, and described the reasons here. Your rationale for supporting your selected three editors is sound - you've had prior dealings with them, you trust them, you know their records, etc. However, I find your rationale for opposing all other editors to be flawed, especially when voting against me.
First of all, it is unfair to dismiss all the carefully answered questions, meticulously crafted responses and well thought-out policy positions as "tl;dr". There are a multitude of ways to evaluate our positions with minimal effort. You could view the plethora of voter guides and endorsements to help guide your decision. You could limit yourself to one answer on which you judge the entire candidate. You could ask a question yourself of the candidates about an issue you consider to be important. This is more fair to us as candidates than a blanket oppose, and is ultimately better for the process.
The blanket oppose seems especially frivolous when it comes to candidates like myself. I currently and unfortunately have the lowest voter turn-out of any candidate, almost 30% lower than the next higher and a little less than a quarter of the total votes of the most voted on candidate. Thus, your single oppose vote sets me back way further than any of the other candidates, and I'm not even a threat! If I were within striking distance of one of your three supported candidates then opposing me would make more sense, but I'm not even close. What's especially unfair is that the vote was cast with no consideration of my stances, my history or my answers.
I'm not asking you to remove your vote, but I am asking you to reconsider it. You don't even have to support me, you could just not vote. If I move up within range of one of your favored candidates then by all means vote against me to benefit them - that's part of the process! I just ask that you give me a fair hearing, and at least a cursory glance at my positions and answers to community questions. Thanks very much for the consideration. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounding in on this ... Amen! Thank you for opposing me for a very good reason. When I saw your oppose I was "what the?", and have only just now read your reasoning. Oddly enough, your oppose is now the highlight of my day. John Vandenberg(chat)08:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me if I sound blunt, but I'm a busy man. You're referring me to read a plethora of guides, a thing I don't have time for. Does that disqualify me as a voter? No. Then I can vote however I please. And as a candidate arbitrator you should be aware that people will use all and any available "loopholes" to further their agenda, in my case the election of my chosen candidates. I was a candidate a year ago and got also opposed on terms "to increase the power of my support votes" or something similar.
I was in a "WTF" state for a while too, but got over it and understood the logic behind this. Life is not always fair, another thing you should be aware of.
Your reasoning about your not being a threat has a basic flaw in requiring me to track further development of the voting (to be able to oppose you in time); again something I don't have time for. From a logical perspective, it does not matter whether I leave you alone for now and only cast oppose when you go higher in the ranks or whether I oppose right now. The latter is simpler, and so have I done.
Lastly, please don't feel ignored (I perceive this from your message). I recognize your name quite well and I don't mean you'd make a bad Arbitrator. But I took the emotional approach and chose those three from the list for whom I had strongest positive feelings (at that time, at least) - I didn't read their answers to questions either. Good luck, Миша1319:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that life isn't fair as much as the next guy, but I was hoping that at least elections would be. :)
Nevertheless, I see your point. I appreciate that you have a rationale for your vote, which is more than I can say for most people opposing me, and I appreciate you taking the time to outline your reasons. Thank you very much, and happy editing! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for stopping his/her irritating and childish movement of pages. I left message seconds before you blocked him, so well donee for noticing him/her. Thank you. Malpass93 (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's alwyas a reason, I suppose. I ran in manually; explicitly on your talk page and it worked, so my best guess is some bug with Special:Whatlinkshere parsing (a bug in the pywikipedia framework) that causes it to occasionally miss a page for some time. Миша1319:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to ask the same thing. I see the bot archiving all over the place, but it always seems to miss mine. Strange. Tex (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Misza. Nixeagle just succeded in clearing an item that wasn't properly signed the first time, by re-signing an old item with his personal signature, as explained in my note to Satori Son. Is it possible that that the full syntax of the expected timestamp could be provided somewhere? I'm also wondering if a fancier version of Template:Unsigned could be developed that would generate a bot-compliant date as well as a signature. (I'd call it something like Oldunsigned, since it would be used to force the archiving of old items, not to provide the accurate date of when the comment was left). To do this it would help to know the syntax the bot expects. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only correct timestamp that should be in use is what ~~~~ and ~~~~~ produce. The bot recognizes a few non-standard stamps (see feedLine function int the code) but that's only legacy support (formats that were used in the past). Миша1319:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if auto archived talk pages should be auto monitored by the signing bot? That should make sure that we don't have unsigned posts being left around. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I look at the code of feedLine, it seems the bot searches for the latest timestamp in any given thread, and uses that. So technically it doesn't need a user name, just a timestamp? So to force archiving of something that was never properly signed, all you need to do is add ~~~~~ to the end of it? And it doesn't matter if some users don't date their edits; it just takes one timestamp for the entire thread to make it work. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The freewebtown-dot-com links are causing it to fail on the spam filter. If you could find and remove/disrupt all these links, it would be great (I must go afk now). Миша1312:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted image in need of restoration
Hi there. Sorry to bring up relatively ancient history, but I ran across something that happened back in July to one of the articles I intermittently patrol that needs to be corrected. The unfree image of the institutional seal of the University of Hawaii at Manoa was removed from that article's infobox by an IPVandal on July 17. No one noticed right away, the image became a de jure unused unfree image, and a few days later, you deleted it. Would you mind restoring the image and popping it back into the article? Thanks. --Dynaflowbabble19:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MiszaBot II doesn't like examples of new section code
MiszaBot II did this to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) while archiving. It mistakenly thought a section started inside a pair of <pre> tags, so it deleted everything from there up to the start of the next section, including a </pre> tag, but not a <pre> tag, which caused the rest of the page to be inside an unclosed <pre> tag. MTC (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archival troubles
In trying to use your bot to archive my own user talk page I have had minimal to no success. I got it to work for a while, but after I changed my name several months ago nothing's happened. I checked the FAQs and did everything I could to simplify it, even changing to a static archive instead of with a counter telling it to move on at 150kb. I have it set to archive to old(45d), and the oldest section timestamp is from October, so it should be at least archiving that. Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated. – Joe Nutter15:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
