This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Hi. I set up this archive, Now I see you've removed the navigation. I don't entirely understand why anyone should do this. Can we put it back? It's standard in WP archives. I also see you combined the two archives even though there are now 28 discussions. Again what was the point? (Links to the second archive no longer work.) Thank you. -- Klein zach 09:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. With {{ aan}}, links to other archive pages will show up automatically once they're created.

It seemed to me that splitting 34k of archived discussions over two pages was unnecessary. I normally go for ~100k per page. But if you want, we could put all the 2011 sections on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)/Archive 2, and then post-2011 sections on Archive 3.

—WWoods ( talk) 16:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we leave it as it is now, otherwise we will have even more confusion! I note that Help:Archiving a talk page recommends archiving for over 50k or more than 10 main topics (see the third paragraph). In this case I divided the archive because of the large number of topics. I should also explain that we have had trouble with Miszabot — archiving discussions in the wrong archive (when there is a series) and not archiving chronologically by last message — so I'd really prefer not to use it. Thanks. -- Klein zach 05:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? The 30-day cycle has worked quite well for over a year. Rivertorch ( talk) 19:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It just seemed a little short for a low-traffic page.

—WWoods ( talk) 19:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Although it has been quiet just lately, it is not a low-traffic page. (Check the 33 archived pages, many of them miserably lengthy.) In addition to sporadic high traffic, it also suffers from a lot of trolling, and the longer certain threads sit there the likelier they are to be trolled. I'm reverting your change. Just wanted you to know why. Rivertorch ( talk) 19:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay; that makes sense. —WWoods ( talk) 20:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Wwoods. We haven't met yet but I was wondering if you could help me out. I tried to set an autoarchive on Empire of Brazil but I must have done something wrong since the bot started to archive from page 2, leaving page 1 of the arhive no more than a redlink. Are you able to fix it? If yes, could you do it, please? Kind regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 22:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done — I guess you copied a version of the bot code which was already set to archive #2. I just moved the three pages down one, modified the bot to match, and some other stuff.

—WWoods ( talk) 22:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks great, thank you very much. If it's not asking too much, could you do the same to these articles:

• Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias
• Pedro II of Brazil
• Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná

I must confess that I'm awful with these gadgets. I was never able to learn how to use them correctly. -- Lecen ( talk) 23:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done

I keep boilerplate code on my user page, so I can just copy&paste and then fill in the blanks, without having to type it all out or go looking for it each time.

—WWoods ( talk) 23:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

They look great. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your help. -- Lecen ( talk) 00:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Wwoods. How are you? Would you mind helping me again? Could add/fix the talk page archives on these articles:

• Pedro I of Brazil
• Platine War
• Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies
• Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil
• Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil
• José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco
• Pedro Álvares Cabral

If it's not much trouble. I would be very grateful. Kind regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 02:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I went through these. Some I set the archiving bot on; some were so low-traffic, I archived the the pre-2011 stuff manually; some had so little I just left them.

—WWoods ( talk) 08:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I really appreciate your help. Thank you very much, Wwoods. Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 11:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to be a dick, but could you see what's wrong with the archive bot of Paraguayan War? I can't look at its archives directly, such as Talk:Paraguayan War/Archive 2, and it seems that it doesn't have an archive 1. Thank you, -- Lecen ( talk) 02:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot worked fine, but you set it to archive into #2; the archive box didn't show a link because there was no #1. I moved the archive page and reset the bot. With the current settings, it won't act again until there are 4 sections, with 2 sections old enough to archive.

—WWoods ( talk) 07:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. As I told you, I'm awful with these gadgets!. Thanks! -- Lecen ( talk) 15:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	For all your hard work fixing archive bots across Wiki. Thank you very much, Wwoods! Lecen ( talk) 15:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers too. -- Trevj ( talk) 08:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi WWoods.

I don't know if you are aware of it or not, but several months ago, I made a diagram very similar to yours for incorporation into the Twin Paradox article. You'll see here I am questioning "Why are there no textbooks that actually DO the Lorentz Transformation? Why do we never actually take the event-mapping one-to-one, and see what the space-time diagram looks like from the traveling twin's point of view on the OUTBOUND trip? Why do we never actually take the event-mapping one-to-one, and see what the space-time diagram looks like on the RETURN trip? Is there some kind of conspiracy, or is it just considered "wrong" to do it, for some reason?"

The best answer I can find is the one given by PAllen, who says here "It seems like this equivalent to the following wording: I pretend I was always moving the way I am now, then I figure out what distance I would have been from the object at the time its image was emitted. Distance here may be taken to be Lorentz 'ruler distance' based on my current simultaneity extended back in time. Assuming you are now moving inertially, I believe this distance will be the same as image size distance (naively interpreted) and also the same as parallax distance. It will also be the same as radar distance to the emitting event determined by someone who really was always moving the way I am now. So then we get into philosophy. Is it reasonable to interpret observations according to a counterfactual model (I wasn't always moving the way I am now)? I've expressed the view that it is perfectly feasible to do this, but not required or preferred."

In any case, I wonder if you agree with me, that it is not only feasible to do this, but it actually should be considered required? And are we breaking with Machian Principle here by claiming that Observer Dependency is "good physics?" I think that though it goes against 60 years of tradition in General Relativity, it is worth considering the reference frames of the twin on the outbound trip and the inbound trip.

What do you think?

JDoolin ( talk) 21:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wwoods,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah -- Yjune.sah ( talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey W, thanks for updating the archiving. I noticed you removed the "small" from the WPX banner. While the XNB is "hosted" by WPX, it is the noticeboard for all the Christianity projects. Having the huge WPX banner muddles the situation. Thus the WPX banner was configured as "small." – Lionel ^{( talk)} 03:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Highest points of U.S. states, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. __ meco ( talk) 08:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

So you know, I removed the section you moved to the end; it was banned sockpuppeteer User:Kay Uwe Böhm again attempting to insert his pet POV material on the talkpage, since the article is indef semiprotected to stop him. If you happen to see it again, just revert the edit; KUB is banned both here and on de-wiki for POV-pushing and sockpuppetry. rdfox 76 ( talk) 00:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John A. Collett is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Collett until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Wwoods. A few months ago you were kind enough to help me with a few Brazilian history-related articles by setting or fixing their talk page archives. I'm having a little trouble with my own talk page archive bot. He seems to be creating several pages for the archive 12. Could you take a look at at it and fix it, if possible? Thanks, -- Lecen ( talk) 04:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh. I'm not familiar with Cluebot, but apparently it archived itself to Archive 12 on 16 March, Archive 12/Archives/ 1 on 26 March, and Archive_12/Archives/_1/Archives/_1 on 6 April. It might be amusing to see if this chain will continue on 16 April. If not, I suggest manually moving all sections from /Archives_1, /Archives_1/Archives_1, and /Archives_1/Archives_1/Archives_1 back to /Archive_12. Delete those pages and the copy of the bot in ==Pedro Álvares Cabral image==.

—WWoods ( talk) 06:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wishing Wwoods a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk} _{about my edits?} 23:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain this change in more detail. I am particularly worried about the 30 days before archiving bit. Chico Venancio ( talk) 05:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It was originally set to 3 days, but the name of the target page was wrong, so it never ran at all. I figured I'd better set it back to 30, so it wouldn't surprise people by wiping the page.

—WWoods ( talk) 05:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks! We'll reduce the time latter then. Chico Venancio ( talk) 05:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wwoods, I used your edits as an example here and wanted to make you aware. You may want to chime in if you feel like it. One user is concerned that something is amiss with the archiving there. I don't see it but you may. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Wwoods. I saw your post from the above mentioned article and was hoping to get your input on Talk:Circumcision#Tactical archiving. Jayjg keeps tuning the archive bot up and now its at 4 days and 3 threads, its simply unbearable. Sometime I can only check the page once a week and I'm constantly checking the archives and new editors are always bringing up unresolved threads. Thanks Garycompugeek ( talk) 18:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Wwoods. You participated in the discussion about the intermittent energy source and therefore I inform you that there is a discussion about merging Intermittent energy source and Variable Renewable Energy articles. Your opinion is appreciated. Beagel ( talk) 14:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a couple of hours ago I mentioned to another editor on talk that I couldn't remember who the experts on archiving were, and presto – you suddenly reappear on the Elvis Presley page. Could you take a quick look at Talk:Greta Garbo and see what I did wrong in setting up Miszabot back on June 10? It was a mixture of settings from Talk:Barack Obama and my own user talk, but the bot seems to be ignoring it. TIA. Fat&Happy ( talk) 23:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You code looks okay. The problem is the bot, which seems to think it's on summer vacation or something: history. It didn't run through the Talk:G*s yesterday, and today it stopped in the middle of archiving Talk:Elvis. See what happens in the next day or so.

—WWoods ( talk) 23:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh; interesting. I generally tend to assume (all too frequently, accurately) that any given screw-up is something I did wrong, not a problem with a long-reliable other... Guess I'll just keep watching for a few days. Thanks for the help. Fat&Happy ( talk) 23:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blair.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 20:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

90 days is really short for a thread to stay on a Talk page. It often takes more than a year for the right person with the knowledge to see and reply to a thread, and then more time may be needed for the original poster or someone else to see the discussion and improve the article.

Please let threads stay for 2 years (730 days) before hiding them away in an archive. For the rare examples where 2 years would lead to overly long Talk pages, those specific pages could get a shorter time frame. 1 year might be better. 90days is probably not enough for any article. Gronky ( talk) 11:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact, now that I think about it, archiving bots shouldn't give threads an expiration time at all. Why do things have to be pushed into an archive? I guess because there's 100 threads and the page is too big. So pages should be archived when their size goes beyond some ridiculous limit. Why does a question from 2, 3, or 5 years ago, still waiting on a response, ever have to be archived?

Can the bot (or the use of the bot) be changed to ignore age and focus on other criteria? Gronky ( talk) 17:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree -- 90 days is a very long time. If a discussion has gone without anyone adding a comment for months, it's dead. There's no point in leaving such discussions cluttering a talk page, obscuring whatever discussions are ongoing. And if you expect anyone to remember that they posted a comment a year ago, and come back to see the response ... well, they can find it in the archives.

—WWoods ( talk) 00:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gronky, an arbitrary period of 90 days is totally unrealistic. I'd prefer a criterion that reflects the activity of the talk page, criteria like keeping the 10 most recent threads (or 50 to 100 kb) seem more appropriate. SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 17:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In a discussion forum, where people chat about the news, threads die, but Wikipedia talk pages are notice boards where I can ask

• "Has anyone an old copy of book XYZ and can check who the translator was?"
• "Does anyone know where we can check the legislation to see the official status of "towns" and how many "towns" are in country XYZ?"
• etc.

These questions never go dead. In fact, the longer it takes to get an answer, the more important the question is! (If it could be answered quickly, it's possible common knowledge or easily found with a search engine.) When I look at a Talk page, I want to see lots of old and new questions so that maybe I can find one that I can answer and we can improve the article. Gronky ( talk) 22:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WWoods -- "90 days is a very long time. If a discussion has gone without anyone adding a comment for months, it's dead. There's no point in leaving such discussions cluttering a talk page", especially when the article may have been heavily edited and moved on a lot since the comment was originally made. Johnfos ( talk) 02:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Archiving is always adjusted as needed on a page by page basis, and considering the needs of the regulars there. The two parameters you have is how many threads to leave and how stale the thread is before it gets archived. Another useful parameter is how big to let the archive be before going on to the next one. Note to Gronky - I would suggest making a habit of reading all the article talk page archives. Delphi234 ( talk) 07:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at proposed image change. Delphi234 ( talk) 07:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Kagero class destroyer armament has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 ( talk) 09:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 00:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ted H. Scroggins is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted H. Scroggins until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You might care to see this:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Template:Infobox ship career

… and the section above it. The edit of yours is this, which was reverted. It seems to me that you were trying to address the issue I've alerted the Ship set about. Br'er Rabbit ( talk) 05:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why did you change the archiving parameters at Fedora talk? — Cpiral Cpiral 22:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Doing it by month resulted in more than a dozen archive pages, most with only one or two sections. ( Search for 'fedora'.) So I merged them all into one: Talk:Fedora (operating system)/Archive 1.

—WWoods ( talk) 23:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But now, how about somewhere in the middle? By the year would result in four. — Cpiral Cpiral 04:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done —WWoods ( talk) 05:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Beautifully. — Cpiral Cpiral 07:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that you added the User:HBC Archive Indexerbot function to the Pittsburgh Steelers talk page with this edit. That Bot, however, has recently been replaced. Its "Indexing of Talk Page Archives" function has been taken over by Legobot (as seen on the User:HBC Archive Indexerbot user page), the task is fully delineated in Legobot's Function 15: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 15. Thought you would want to know. Cheers, Shearonink ( talk) 15:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wwoods. Someone made an observation at Talk:Virginia Beach, Virginia#Redirect to "Virginia Beach", and I hoped you might have some insigt.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1635: The Papal Stakes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1635: The Papal Stakes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 06:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the formatting help to the talk page of Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance, much appreciated, perhaps you'd be interested in joining WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech? — Cirt ( talk) 02:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein ( talk) 04:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In case you didn't realize, your change of the archival time at Talk:Jerusalem was just reverted. Maybe he thought fifteen days was still too long? -- tariqabjotu 19:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If you touch another ARBPIA article or talk you will be reported.-- Ubikwit ( talk) 17:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit