User talk:ArchiverBot/Archive 1

{{DNAU}}

Hi, the bot is failing to respect DNAU marks. These look like: <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 21:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC) --> Let me know as I may have to undo recent archives to my user page once the feature gets added. --Fæ (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The bot is not respecting my DNAU marks

See [1] ... The bot should not run, before this issue is resolved. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ and Cccefalon: Thanks for letting me know. I have made a temporary fix to my instance of pywikibot, and it should be ok for now. Please see phab:T102423 for underlying problems. whym (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What's up?

Bot is marked as "daily", but it looks like Bot is not working here for more than 5 days. Is it okay? --Dvorapa (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Now working. --Dvorapa (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If there is nothing to archive, bot doesn't edit, but the underlying script runs every day. — regards, Revi 06:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Visible on Watchlist

Hi whym, is this right I can see the bot edits in my watchlist (I've putten this off)⁉ ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't - I think I spotted the cause [2] and the next run should be fine. Sorry for the trouble. whym (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you man for fast response, it seems working. It was not that big trouble. ;-) ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 14:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Not archiving on my talkpage?

Hi, I have my archive set up to archive after a day and to leave no messages on my talkpage - The last message (and reply) was posted on 10th November however 5 days on and the message's still there - Wasn't sure if it's something to do with my archive set up or what ?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: My guess is that you need to set minthreadstoarchive to 1 to achieve what you want. When not specified, since its default value is 2, nothing will happen until the talk page has at least two old enough threads. whym (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Whym, Well bizarrely it had worked twice before [3] so If it is that then it seems odd after 2 months to more or less kick up a fuss - unless it's a case of "It shouldn't work but it kinda does" ... I have no idea but inregards to the minthreadstoarchive - I prefer to have everything archived in one go instead of having discussions left lying around, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Problem on Village Pump

This edit left the page somewhat broken. It seems that nowiki tags were misinterpreted, or maybe the page was already broken in some way: [4]

The archive may not be in great shape either. --ghouston (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ghouston: You are right. Basically, if you have "==" at the start of a line, it will be recognized as a separator between sections, even if it's within nowiki or commented out. I'll suspend the bot while I look into it more closely. A short term solution might be to fix the page and achive manually by looking at (possibly old) diffs of the page - any chance you can help with this? A long term solution will be discussed at phab:T182496. whym (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look later and see if I can manually archive the offending section. --ghouston (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Done, it should be alright to active the bot again, assuming the nowiki in the archive doesn't break it too (probably not?), and as long as nobody else tries to put == in a nowiki block before the bot can be fixed. --ghouston (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Archiving not working on my user talk page

Hi, can anyone please help me properly set up the archiving on my user talk page? This is the code that I use there:

{{User:MiszaBot/config|algo=old(7d)|archive=User_talk:Darkweasel94/arĥivo/%(year)d|minthreadsleft=0}}

Here's what the archiving log says:

 Processing [[commons:User talk:Darkweasel94]]
 10 Threads found on [[commons:User talk:Darkweasel94]]
 Looking for: {{User:MiszaBot/config}} in [[commons:User talk:Darkweasel94]]
 Processing 10 threads
 2 Threads found on [[commons:User talk:Darkweasel94/arĥivo/2017]]
 ERROR: Missing or malformed template in page [[commons:User talk:Darkweasel94]]: Couldn't find the template in the header

After reading the documentation, I can't figure out what is wrong with my template. It seems to last have worked in 2015, but I haven't changed the template since then, so there must have been some change in the bot code. Does the non-ASCII character (ĥ) maybe cause the problem? darkweasel94 07:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I presume it being in one line is causing the problem. Same code, on Korean Wikipedia (Special:CentralAuth/Revibot I) works just fine. If you can expand it (with enters, like below), it might work. Untested, though. (I can run it manually for you if you're willing to do it.)

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo=old(7d)
|archive=User_talk:Darkweasel94/arĥivo/%(year)d
|minthreadsleft=0
}}

— regards, Revi 16:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I've changed it to your code, let's see if it works tonight. darkweasel94 17:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it did, thank you for your help! darkweasel94 09:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem — regards, Revi 09:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sanity check for dates

The bot makes archives easy to subvert by such an elementary mean as posting any rubbish claiming to have old dates. Please, refuse to archive sections on which dating doesn’t produce a reasonable result. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. What check would you propose exactly? If the bot had the ability to look at the history of the page, it might be possible to find out a particular timestamp is in a quote and not added at the time it indicates, but that's a fundamental change to how the bot works, so it will not be an easy fix. Plus, if it was a moved discussion, not a quote, you would want it to be archived like any other thread - how would you distinguish quotes and moved discussions? whym (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, just refuse to archive anything claiming to be older than 366 days. Possibly, it would be wise to report such case to operator and abort all operations on the page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I might not fully understand what you are trying to say, but aren't there cases where very old comments should be archived? It's pretty common for someone to add the template for the bot (User:MiszaBot/config) with full of threads from more than one year ago. In those cases, people expect those old threads to be archived soon. I think what you are implying is that new comments with old time stamps should be treated differently from normal comments with 'real' timestamps. However, as I said, there is an issue of moved discussions. To achieve truly reasonable results, we need precise rules with examples what should be and should not be archived. Feel free submit a task. Thanks! whym (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Форум

This forum is not so active, so could you please change the archiving period onto one month? It's too boring to dig archives every visit. --Figure19 (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Figure19: It already waits for almost one month, 28 days, before archivine a thread ("|algo = old(28d)"). Would adding 3 days help? Or, maybe do you want to have the bot to archive it once or less in one month? - if so, we don't provide such an option for now. You might want to use a longer limit such as "|algo = old(90d)" instead. Please check FAQ too, if you haven't. whym (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

As for now, I see Bot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 14 days), not 28. --Figure19 (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, now I see it changed onto 28. Thank you.--Figure19 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Goosing the counter

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T220828

Hi again. The bot seems to be increasing the counter on COM:FILTERT by leaps and bounds, for no discernible reason. In this edit, it increased the counter from 22 to 28, and it is not even using the counter for archiving that page.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 20:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting. While it does look strange and is worth investigation, if the counter is not used, it doesn't seem to do any harm. I'll look into it later. whym (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Stopped working on April 28

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T222671

Hi, The bot stopped working on April 28. Please fix it. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I restarted the job. The previous job was stuck for unknown reasons. whym (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It turns out it was a bug phab:T222671, and it has been fixed (I hope). whym (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Not working 201906

It stopped archiving COM:AN since 30 May.--Roy17 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Exempted from filter 69: Special:AbuseFilter/history/69/diff/prev/2061.--Roy17 (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Archiving not reviewed talks

Hello!

Is the bot supposed to archive sections that hasn't got the {{Section resolved}} tag? If yes, why? If not, then I must inform you that it does, see COM:History merging and splitting/Requests.Jonteemil (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: This bot does not recognize the tag you mentioned. It sounds like what you are looking for is User:SpBot and Template:Autoarchive resolved section, not this bot. whym (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, what is the purpose of archiving sections that aren't even resolved?Jonteemil (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes 'everyone lost interest' might be a valid reason to archive a thread, although I know it doesn't apply to all kinds of discussion. As the bot operator, I don't have any wisdom to share on whether Commons:History merging and splitting/Requests should use this bot or User:SpBot or something else. You can raise the question at its talk page. whym (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. whym (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Liberaler Humanist/Archive 1

User talk:Liberaler Humanist/Archive 1 has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this user page ⧼pageinfo-talkpage⧽, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Liberaler Humanist (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

202307

@-revi and Whym: hi! the bot is not moving since 19 july. RZuo (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe it's fixed now. whym (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

thx a lot!--RZuo (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)