I've just extended RD/Archives/Answered questions [1] to cover the new year. Possibly your bot could so similar work every new year or even every new month, or at least put an appropriate reminder somewhere? But I have no idea where is 'somewhere'... --CiaPan (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that! (I was hoping someone would.)
I seldom browse through archives, and AFAIR have never used the time index before. So it was a pure accident that I updated it, and probably I won't remember to check and do it again next month or next year. May be someone else will, or may be not. That's why I came to idea of an automated reminder. But I unerstand it might be quite a lot programming work compared to little practical effect, so do as you wish. Best regards, CiaPan (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Date headers again
I noticed yesterday (16th) the date headers hadn't been done for all the desks. Added to the science desk but decided to leave the rest since it wasn't that long before the day. Today I thought the bot had done it but looks like someone else did. Not sure if there's a problem with the bot or the server/you've just been away since I noticed the bot's editing has been a bit irregular besides the dates although it has been doing other things but not the dates since the 15th. Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially as my argument keeps getting proven again and again. That must really irk y'all. P.S. Please follow your own rules and confine your responses to the page they started, i.e. here. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that there's a "double standard"? So what? Even if there is one, the appropriate response is for us to all deal with it, not for you to use it as an excuse to condone (or a smokescreen to distract from) your pointlessly disruptive behavior.
Thanks for the review of the "repairing a virus" FAQ. I tried to implement your suggestions and I'm going to take the liberty of making it a Reference Desk sub-page, if such a thing is tenable.
Yes, thanks, I know, I'm the operator of that bot! (It's not perfect, and when it makes a mistake -- as in this case when someone used a level-three heading to start a new entry, contrary to the bot's expectations -- I have to clean up after it manually.) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(The explanation: when the default Wikipedia skin changed earlier this month, the bot barfed, and in cleaning up after it, I made a temporary change which I forgot to reverse.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Should I add May 13 to May 21 manually? I don't want to do it completely with section links to the archives but I could easily copy unlinked section titles from the TOC's. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish. I'm going to try to figure out an semiautomatic way to retroactively reinvoke the bot to go back and fill those in (with the links), but it's likely to be a day or two before I'm in a position to do that. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding those. You were too prompt, that's all -- the bot hadn't created June 1 pages yet. But they're all there now, and all the links are blue. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
I noticed your comment to this edit.
You're right, those hiden items are needed for nice formatting. They force the right (main) part of the <table> to the appropriate width, so the left coloured part with 'Computing, Sciense, Mathematics...' headers gets the wdith consistent with other tables. Without those items the coloured stripe gets wider, and that looks a bit worse. (See the previous version and compare tables for 2009 and 2010.) This was most important when the table contained only one of two months, see here. --CiaPan (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel up to it, I'd be interested in a slightly more fine-grained assessment of the consensus in the Cuddlyable3 discussion (Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#results). As written, I fear that your tally of votes is apt to convey to Cuddlyable3 the message that his conduct is perfectly acceptable — if that isn't your conclusion based on the reading of the discussion it would probably be helpful to expand your remarks slightly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about that, too (i.e., your fear), although I hesitated before trying to summarize the entire discussion given that I wasn't an unbiased participant. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Scsbot gets confused with the dates when no one posts a new question for over a day. It's adding the two dates at once but in the wrong order as seen in this edit. It's easy to fix by hand and easier still to just ignore it but I though you should know.--RDBury (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
