User talk:Scs/Archive/2010

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit.
Other archives: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

---

New month, new year

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)

Thanks for doing that! (I was hoping someone would.)

My feeling that this task is so infrequent (once or twice per year) that it's not worth trying to automate. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Aha. I forgot that the date-adding portion of the bot needs to be fixed to handle the new User-Agent nonsense. Grr. Will do. Thanks for pointing it out. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

IP's

So the IP's personal attack is allowed to stand, and my followup comment is not. Yet you all claim there is no double-standard where IP's are concerned. Yeh, you betcha, by golly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your continued harping on this pet issue of yours is disruptive. It's as simple as that. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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 Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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.

I'm not going to bother with your silly potshot about "my rules". —Steve Summit (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Steve Summit,

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.

Thanks! Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Help desk

There is no need to archive the HD manually - it's done by a bot. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

Oops! I fix those heading level errors when I spot them... – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/May 2010 not updated

Scsbot has not updated Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/May 2010 since May 15 when it archived May 11 and May 12. It has archived several days since then, from Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 May 13 to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 May 20. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed.

(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)

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)

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)

I see Theurgist has done it completely with section links both for the help desk and reference desks. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Scsbot failure - June 2010

I've just added June links to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Answered questions and discovered red links in it. Looks like your bot failed to create the June 1st archves for Math, Lang and Entertainment ref.desks. --CiaPan (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Thank you. --CiaPan (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

scsbot

Message at User_talk:Scsbot#Reference_desk - sorry I only saw the "will stop the bot" message after I posted the problem .. no date headers by the way . Sorry if I broke the bot.87.102.17.246 (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'll reply at RD talk page. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ref.Desk archives formatting trick

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)

Yup, got it. Nice trick. Thanks for all your work on that page. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:RD summary

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)

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)

RefDesk archives need a new month

Please tell your bot to add pages for November 2010 links in WP:Reference_desk/Archives. --CiaPan (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Small issue with scsbot date headers

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)

It's an issue I've known about but keep forgetting, and while minor, it'd be nice to fix. Thanks for the reminder. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I came by to report the same thing: [2]. Glad to see you're aware of the issue. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Me too.[3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This glitch is finally fixed. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Scsbot

A discussion has just started at Wikipedia talk:New contributors' help page/questions that you may be interested in. Thanks! TNXMan 15:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Further to this - it looks as though archiving still isn't working on NCHPQ (catchy, no?); since you were so helpful with this before perhaps you'd be so kind as to take another look? There's discussion at Wikipedia_talk:New_contributors'_help_page/questions#Needs archiving. Many thanks and happy holidays. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)