User talk:Kslotte/Archive 2011
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kslotte. 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. |
Archiving help?
Hi! In case you don't remember, about a month ago you tried fiddling with my archive settings for MiszaBot since it doesn't increment the counter when it starts a new archive (for whatever reason). As of the latest rollover it's still not behaving. Any chance you have any other ideas up your sleeve that may fix it? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- My idea in the first place was that the bot didn't find the place to edit. But, reordering the paramters didn't fix it. A second alternative is that there is something in your header that disturbs the bot. But it seems odd, since the script is located first on the page. Sorry, but I don't have any good tip to get it fixed for you. --Kslotte (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. I'll just try messing around with it myself some more then. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Military operations currently ongoing
Category:Military operations currently ongoing, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cs32en Talk to me 12:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Unarchiving
Could you please stop unarchiving talk pages? There's no valid reason to be doing so. Also, there's no reason to have old discussions sitting there for months with no comments, especially on pages which sometimes get bursts of activity which fill up the page to a great degree. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- I came here to say the same thing. I'm seeing you changing the bot archiving parameter to one year. This is almost never a good idea, and particularly not with BLPs. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- And, what is the hurry in moving the sections into archives if there is plenty of space left on page? With a frequent archiving some users may get the impression of discussion censorship. Allowing a longer time to elapse before archiving threads and keeping more threads on the talk page allow occasional visitors to the talk page the opportunity to respond. Anyway, feel free to revert me if you are familair with the "way of talking" on particular a page. --Kslotte (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a question of space. There's always space. It's a question of not leaving very old posts lying around. That's particularly important when it comes to living persons, but there's never any good reason to do it. It's best to allow active editors on the page to set the bot parameters, then allow the bot to archive. I'm not clear why you go around changing this so much. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Sean Connery
Thanks for the tidy-up. As you will have seen, this was my first attempt at auto archiving.I'm still not sure that the 'search' is working as it should. Could you please have a look? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- It usually takes a while before search starts to work properly. It probably use some type of content cache. --Kslotte (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was hoping it would be a delay issue; something like that. Thanks for clarifying. RashersTierney (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
pending changes on the nuclear powerplant article
They certainly don't make it clearer which edits were performed and which ones weren't; I have also experienced things not happening which I thought had done.... I wonder if it only filters out the bold edits ;-) L.tak (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
MiszaBot 1
Hi Kslotte, I have added MizaBot 1 to Talk:Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange and he is not showing up, could you please have a look and let me know what I have wrong, seems correct to me.. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I replied at Talk:Swedish_Judicial_Authority_v_Julian_Assange#Archiving_old_discussions.3F. --Kslotte (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks amigo, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, your recent edits working to help us transition to WP:SS are very welcome. I thought your initial edits were thoughtful and helpful and took the liberty of undoing your self-reversion. Please continue to be WP:BOLD and help us trim the fat and make the transition of the article to summary style. I look forward to more of your contributions. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For taking care of Wikipedia, in the right way! :) WhiteWriter speaks 23:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC) |
Your archiving edit here was reasonable as a general matter; however, in this specific talk page, no thread needs to be removed or archived prematurely. The issues are still active, unresolved. The explanation for this is not simple. In other words, your judgement was not wrong, but the edit was not helpful for the process of developing consensus in a controversial context. --Tenmei (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
edit summary
Yea maybe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A brownie for you!
|
- Thanks. --Kslotte (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Extending archiving times
Kslotte, I'd like to ask you again to stop extending talk-page archiving times. This edit, for example, extended the time from 10 days to one year on a BLP. BLPs ideally need short talk-page archive times, especially if they're contentious. In general, it's best to let the editors on the page decide whether it's okay to lengthen the time, because they know what's been happening. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- In what guideline does it read the BLP talk pages should be short? --Kslotte (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know whether it's stated anywhere in a guideline, but it's obviously not a good idea to leave potentially problematic talk-page posts around for a year. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- In what cases are these potentially problematic? For example there is post about that something is incorrect on the page. No one had the time give answer neither correct the issue, because the thread got archived. In that sense a to active archiving does more harm then good. --Kslotte (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't see this reply earlier. The point is that you can't be there to monitor every talk-page you're extending the archive time on, so when you extend it to one year on a BLP, and someone thereafter posts something inappropriate, there's a risk it will sit there for 365 days. That's why it's better on BLPs, and talk pages where BLP issues might arise, to keep the archive time short. That's especially true where lots of people aren't watching them. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 13:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your argument doesn't make sence to me at all. Speeding up archiving will also sweep away appropriate postings that hasn't been resolved. And, inappropriate postings can be removed on the spot if it violates tpg. --Kslotte (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
WP Cycling in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Cycling for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Miza1
Hi Kslotte. I am never going to get the hang of this bot. I have added one here - have I got it right as he is not showing up. There was some dispute about manual archiving, although there now seems to be no objection to the bot. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)