User talk:Werdna/Archive/Archive-Feb2007

It looks like your site is down.

]

I am aware of this. Thank you for letting me know — Werdna talk 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your enormously useful bot!

Please consider adding a Messagebox for Archive Pages. I have a reference implementation at the top of

.

Thanks! --

]

It appears that the archival of User talk:Werdnabot to this page User talk:Werdna isn't happening. Please either fix that or remove the messagebox and category membership which says that it should be happening.

Thanks! --

) 07:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Partly to show that my oppose on your RfA was no indication of your worth as a developer and general Wikipedian, but mainly because it's just well deserved:

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For being Wikipedians' Q. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said that Werdna is like Q (James Bond) (but even smarter). JRSpriggs 03:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger, I meant Q of course. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, to both of you :-) — Werdna talk 07:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Happy Birthday to you, Werdna/Archive/Archive-Feb2007, from Gravity!!! Have a nice time!

Happy birthday Andrew (inverted)!!! --Gravity^Talk 12:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee ! Have a great day, Werdna/Archive/Archive-Feb2007!

Woohoo! Happy Birthday from all of us! Cheers -

]

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

]

MediaWiki

http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8799

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DoubleRedirects

Updates for this page are currently disabled. Request Urgent Update. Please. Thank you.

Tim turned it off for load reasons. Maybe if it's made more efficient it could be turned back on.

Shouldn't this be rewritten using the new redirects table? Would that make it faster?

Can you do something so it updates for 1 last time. Please? --Parker007 05:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this edit where you add IRC logs to your RfA, could you edit this in some way so that it doesn't alter the numbering? It gets confusing when the numbering starts and restarts, and I believe this will screw up the bots as well. Thanks, auburnpilot talk 07:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new user of Werdnabot; thanks for creating and maintaining it. I did get unexpected behavior on Werdnabot's first visit. In this edit Werdnabot correctly archived several sections of my talk page. However, it didn't delete those sections from the talk page. As a result, it re-archived those sections, creating duplicates in this edit, although during the second pass it correctly deleted the archived sections. —The preceding

]

Hi

Hi, Mr. Robot—Preceding unsigned comment added by VitaleBaby (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 January 2007

To quote your User page, "We're sorry, we will be unable to take your call at this time. Please leave your name, message, and phone number after the beep." :)  --

talk|contribs|links|watch|logs) 17:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ha ha. Hey, even robots need some love. I just wanted to tell him that he's doing a great job! Mr. Vitale 18:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Werdnabot autoarchive template to my talk page about 3 days ago, but nothing has been archived yet. Did I do something wrong, or is Werdnabot on vacation for some reason?  ;) —P^urpleRA^IN 17:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is alive, see my talk. Let me see if you have configured it right...

FirefoxMan 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

To PurpleRain: You set the retention period to sixty (60) days. The only message on your talk page which is over sixty days old is the first one. And that message is not in a section because there is no section header above it. Thus Werdnabot is not supposed to archive anything from your page yet. In other words, Werdnbot is working the way it is supposed to work. If you think that some sections should have been archived, then you should either reduce the retention period or put a section header over that first message. JRSpriggs 04:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I was aware that only the first message was old enough to be archived, but couldn't figure out why it wasn't being archived. Thanks for explaining. —P^urpleRA^IN 20:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the

]

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Werdna/Archive/Archive-Feb2007 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee ! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

Happy Birthday on behalf of

Talk | Contribs) 06:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, I think you're only 16 (born

talk|contribs) 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Question

You were not in to answer me privately on IRC, but now could you answer me on-wiki - I have posted this as a question to your RfA.--

[[User:Konstable|Konst.able

^{[[User talk:Konstable|Talk]]}]] 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Oh goody, this started a typical wiki-mess on

Konstable 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I replied to you by way of IRC memo approximately fifteen minutes after you asked me on IRC. — Werdna talk 05:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Ed (talk · contribs) changed the "age" variable here (in the Werdnabot invocation at User talk:Werdnabot) from 0 to 1, I thought that we should have a message to test whether it works now. This is that message. JRSpriggs 04:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the archiving from User talk:Werdnabot to here is working again. I assume that this is as a result of the same bug-fix (if that is what it was) mentioned in the next section of talk. JRSpriggs 07:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werdna, any idea why your bot started working again for

]

I know why it started working again, I'm not saying what exactly happened as it may be useful to vandals. — Werdna talk 05:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to mail this directly, but it does not seem to get through. The postmaster keeps telling me it's "unable to deliver this message after 8 hours". Is your e-mail OK?

• Hungarian format is "YYYY. MMMM DD., HH:SS"
• French format is "DD MMMM YYYY à HH:SS"
• English format is "HH:SS, DD MMMM YYYY"
• German format is "HH:SS, DD. MM YYYY"

Archiving French Wikipedia

Hello, Andrew, it's me again...

The 'bot started its work on fr:WP after the time format being corrected, and archived *all* of my discussion page, leaving only two sections that had no time stamp. No real harm done, of course, but this is clearly a bug. The positive side is: fr:WP has been included in its batch work, and the time format is not bugged anymore.

The 'bot is apparently having the same problems with time stamps and date recognition that the ones you had in November 2006 with Hungarian formats. Hungarian is "2006. Month 31, 23:59", English is "23:59, 31 Month 2006", French format is "31 month 2006 à 23:59". I don't know how this was resolved on the Hungarian WP.

Is there a simple way to tell the 'bot that the order is "DD MMMM YYYY à HH:SS" ?

Yours, faith- and hope-fully,

Michelet-Me laisser un message 07:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to give us some samples of actual time stamps. I gathered these from a talk page on the French Wikipedia:

24 janvier 2007 à 01:09 (CET)

31 décembre 2006 à 07:34 (CET)

9 décembre 2006 à 15:17 (CET)

30 novembre 2006 à 11:48 (CET)

31 octobre 2006 à 20:43 (CET)

Notice that the day of the month can be a single digit, and the length of the name of the month is variable. Also the time-stamp seems to always be followed by " (CET)" which might be useful in scanning quickly to find the time-stamps. Especially one needs an ordered list of the names of ALL twelve months as used in the time-stamps. JRSpriggs 12:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. The pattern has been correctly adapted as far as I can see (see fr:Utilisateur:Werdnabot/Interface/Timestampregex) and the monthes (fr:Utilisateur:Werdnabot/Interface/Months) are OK. Can the source code be seen somewhere, so I could make more sensible suggestions? Michelet-Me laisser un message 05:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's on my toolserver svn repository. If you want it on the web somewhere, let me know and I'll copy it into an HTTP-accessible location. — Werdna talk 05:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you could put a copy of the code on some page here, for instance. Michelet-Me laisser un message 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just reposting the discussion - Is your site repaired, btw? Michelet-Me laisser un message 05:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's back up. — Werdna talk 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hard lines. It was hard opposing someone who gives so much to the project. I would like to support you when you next stand (assuming, of course, that things move on from the RfA oppose reasons), so please do drop me a line. --Dweller 13:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that - you just didn't build a case for having the tools and with that and another 6 months of civil, courteous behaviour you'll have my support. regards. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I supported, as I did last time, though I understand many of the oppose concerns. You should know that your work for En-Wiki and all our other projects is very much appreciated. Newyorkbrad 14:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. I let my ED fear take me for a second - that was stupid. I'm glad that I'm in the support column for the record (under the buzzer). I look forward to nominating you in 3-6 months. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who participated.

For unrelated reasons (to facilitate more time spent on more important things [driving, schoolwork, other development projects]), I will be significantly cutting back my contribution both to MediaWiki and to other Wikimedia projects. I cannot emphasise enough that this is in no way related to the closing of my RfA, rather something I've been thinking a lot about for the last few days and a decision I have come to.

— Werdna talk 21:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hiya Werdna. Sorry to hear you're scaling back, though I hope you take as log as you need. Nevertheless, I thought I'd let you know we've just set up an

00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

There is clearly a need for it, considering the users trying to put it on their discussion page (which I keep on reverting), but it still dosen't work with the french format. Can you put the code for instance on this page, so the bug can be discussed? Unless placing it in a GFDL licence is a real problem, of course. Michelet-Me laisser un message 16:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] — Werdna talk 09:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for creating this bot, it's a really amazing tool that I see many people using.  :)

I just installed it myself this week, and overall it's working beautifully, but I did have one question. A certain section on my talkpage, User talk:Elonka#Smiley Award didn't get archived, even though it has a section header and datestamp. I'm wondering if this is because I had added the signature manually with the {{unsigned}} template? Is there something I need to add to it to get Werdnabot to recognize the datestamp in that case (like do I need to subst the template?), or do I just need to archive those sections manually, or is something else going on? Thanks, --Elonka 19:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To have a conversation archived next run

Put <!--werdnabot-archive--> anywhere inside the section. Werdnabot will archive it next run regardless of timestamps.

"...when everything else has failed, read the manual" (a computer programmer phrase ;o) Michelet-Me laisser un message 07:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Werdna! I just noticed that my archive (here) only contains the last four posts on my talk page, and I don't know what happened. I'm not saying it's your bot's fault, as it may have been vandalism or something else, but if you could take a look at it, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!! Cheers!! Ninety^{wazup?Review me}_{My ToDo} 15:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions were performed in this edit. I have undone them for you.   —

talk|contribs) 21:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you!!

P.S.: Who/what deleted them? Ninety^{wazup?Review me}_{My ToDo} 23:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It appears that Werdnabot deleted the old posts in your archive. Hopefully, Werdna can jump in and explain why, because I certainly don't understand why. :)   —

talk|contribs) 08:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Deleting history

Hi there! We were wondering if we could ask your help for a simple feature request? At present, the message for Special:Delete tells you if the page you're about to be deleted has a history. It would be nice if it would say "a history of X edits". In particular, if X = 2, that means one edit is the creation, the second is the speedy-deletion tag; thus the CSD patrollers would find this useful. >Radiant< 15:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it, but please, bugzilla is there for a reason. — Werdna talk 04:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look at Special:Contributions/Werdnabot each day to make sure that it ran to completion correctly. I have noticed that it puts the page count into User:Werdnabot/Archiver/PageCount when it finishes and uses the edit summary "Updating article count". I suggest that you put the page count into the edit summary. This would make it much easier to look back over the history of Werdnabot's activities and see how the page count has changed over time. Thank you. JRSpriggs 05:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your statement on the arbitration page and have little difficulty believing what you have said there. As for the arbitration case, please be reassured that the subject of the case was involved in a number of other controversial blocks. Unfortunately, he was probably headed for being the subject of an ArbCom case sooner or later; I tried to head off the necessity for that a number of times, but unsuccessfully; and ultimately there we are. But if it hadn't been those logs and this block, it would most likely have been something else. Regards, Newyorkbrad 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 6	5 February 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation organizational changes enacted	Group of arbitrators makes public statement about IRC
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing	WikiWorld comic: "Clabbers"
News and notes: More legal citations, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

12:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You're a bit wrong and off the mark. See, if having an ED account was grounds for blocking, I would be forced to block myself for that. There was another user from ED that I blocked and based upon his edits, it seemed logical to infer that this user was a sleeping sock. If they want to be unblocked, they can e-mail me. Yanksox 12:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Cool, I've unblocked him anyways. Yanksox 12:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am testing this again because I reduced the "age" from 1 back to 0. JRSpriggs 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You blocked this guy for 24 hours. I'm curious as to why he wasn't blocked indef as a vandal-only account. — Werdna talk 05:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's made some legitimate edits, believe it or not. I'd intended to keep on eye on the account and issue a longer block if the vandalism persisted, but I'll leave it to you if you'd prefer. —

David Levy 05:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not an admin, remember? — Werdna talk 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean the blocking part. I meant that you can keep and eye on the account and report any further infractions to be addressed by another admin. I support whatever block is deemed appropriate. —

David Levy 05:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll look at his contribs every now and then. — Werdna talk 06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this? I can't figure it out, other then didn't there use to be a "/trunk/phase3/includes/SpecialBlockLog.php"? Prodego ^talk 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare: before edit after edit. Diff. I got suspicious when I couldn't find my message on Jimbo's talk... this needs fixing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have localized the problem, and think I have a solution here (but I don't know this programming language, so it may be heavily bugged! take care.) The key is indeed that:

• Hungarian format is "YYYY. MMMM DD., HH:mm"
• French format is "DD MMMM YYYY à HH:mm"
• English format is "HH:mm, DD MMMM YYYY"
• German format is "HH:mm, DD. MM YYYY"

... so that the code works for english and german, but not french and hungarian (and probably won't on other time stamp formats as well). Michelet-Me laisser un message 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I'll look into it. — Werdna talk 06:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified fr:Utilisateur:Werdnabot/Interface/Timestampregex accordingly, so you can test the patch on its next run. Anyway, if it bugs, fr: is the last wiki to be archived, so there will be no harm done. Please check the syntax of my Timestampregex, yesterday was my first contact with perl... Michelet-Me laisser un message 07:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnabot has had an activity on en: and commons: today (9 feb.), but nothing on fr:. Have you had a bug report somewhere? Michelet-Me laisser un message 19:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werdna, how do I set sections of my talk page that are older than three days to automatically be archived by Werdnabot? Will you respond here or on my un-archived user page?

-Steptrip 23:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that the bot marked this job as done but I don't see that it has actually done anything. Is there someting that I'm missing? Duja► 13:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I would like to archive a subpage of my Talk page to the same page as my Talk page. Will the page,

]

No. — Werdna talk 06:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! —

Improve me] 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a automated to all bot operators

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you

]

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

05:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

Werdnabot seems not to have had any activity on french WP since my modification of time stamp RegEx, so I'm reverting it. The temptative format was:

(\d{1,2})\s([a-zA-Zéû]+)\s(\d{4})\sà\s(\d{1,2}):(\d{2})(?{ $hour = $4; $minute = $5; $day = $1; $month = $2; $year = $3;})

Apparently, it can't read the format where variables have affectations. Have you had any bug report from its action on fr:WP these last few days? Michelet-Me laisser un message 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing it that way. I've got something else being worked on. — Werdna talk 09:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've reverted the timestampRegEx to its previous value, and indeed, Werdnabot has resumed its activity: see fr:Special:Contributions/Werdnabot. Obviously, the "(?{ $hour = $4; $minute = $5; $day = $1; $month = $2; $year = $3;})" was not edible for Werdabot ;o) Michelet-Me laisser un message 17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werdna, the Iraq War talk page is too big, its currently at 300kb. I don't want to change your bot's setting without contacting you first. You thing you can shorten the archive timeframe to 10 to 15 days?? Or, do you have any other ideas how to solve this?? - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I lowered the time to 15. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Werdna,

Can you please let me know whether it is compulsory for archived user talk pages to be linked to the user's talk page. Thanks.

My problem is that I have been archiving comments from my user talk page, for some time now, without linking the archive pages to the talk page, because some of the comments were personal and confidential correspondence from another user to myself, and were not about any Wikipedia articles — and because I was under the impression that user talk pages could be archived by the user concerned, on pages within the user's section, without having to link them from the user talk page. I did not mean to break Wikipedia protocol by doing this. The reason why I archived the comments was twofold — the number of comments concerned, and so that I would have a record of the comments (apart from the user talk history page).

Nique1287, who is offended that I have not put in any links, has been continually returning my archived comments to my talk page, and, although I have requested that she wait while I set up new archive pages (either by genre, or chronologically) which would link directly from my talk page, she has stated that she will not wait and, once again, restored my archived comments to my talk page (I have archived her comments, including her most recent comments, on a special archive page called User:Figaro/Personal abuse archive).

Nique1287 has also stated, in her most recent comment, that she will be checking every entry to make sure that I have all the comments open to public view (one set of comments was from another user who wanted to know my identity because he thought that he might be a friend of his (Wikipedia policy is that a member's personal identity is protected when the person becomes a member — if the demands made by Nique1287 — who is demanding that my personal and private comments also be included for public view, then my personal identity will be at risk). My question then, if it is compulsory to have all archived comments linked from a user's talk page, would the personal comments also be required to be linked, even though, in so doing, it would be breaking Wikipedia policy and protocol.

I would very much appreciate hearing from you about this. Thank you. Figaro 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell the bot to run now for the humanities ref desk, still testing, until I put the code on all desks. Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities --Parker007 18:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hey Werdna. Just wanted to report that I just (quite late!) noticed that the bot is, for some reason, archiving comments to '06' pages still, which will very shortly become an issue. Also, how can I change the bot so it archives threads with only one comment in them? Sorry to bother you with these issues, but you helped me set up the bot in the first place, so I'm still not quite as proficient with it as I probably should be. Thanks in advance, though. --InShaneee 14:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]