338:
left. The other two were two days ago and in another section were additional commentary continued on in sections that were not archived; thus in my opinion I was not interrupting an ongoing discussion by archiving those sections. Lastly, the talk page was more than 130kb in size. It was time to archive. If you disagree with my archive/removal, feel free to pull the section(s) you dispute being archived back to this page. The material isn't gone; just archived. --
349:
I don't disagree with removal (after a while), I just think that by removing topics which have only just finished being discussed (or are precursors to a followup discussion) we are preventing people from replying to points (unless they start a new section, which is disjointed) which may be perfectly
431:
I think there's a number of scalability issues plaguing
Knowledge. Archiving of large talk pages is just one of them. On my own talk page, I gave up archiving in segments; it makes it harder for people to find things they might be looking for. It'll end up being a huge page, but I think it's more
337:
There were a total of 4 edits made less than three days ago in the material that I archived. In the case of the first two, they were in regards to a section of this page that had already been archived. Continued discussion on that section appeared to have concluded based on the comments that were
769:
I appreciate the quick reply and I now see the heading (based on the first line there I thought the archives referred to the RfA's themselves rather than this talk, but I now see the second line is different). I guess I just wasn't expecting to see a thread archived to which I had contributed as
731:
Was some discussion refactored or inadvertently deleted from this page today? I just referred a user to the discussion of "young admin candidates" that was going on on this page as recently as this morning, but it's not here any more, and I don't see a talk archive.
199:
I was told that there was no archive of votes on admins, aside from those who actually became admins. Shouldn't a page be maintained for those who didn't become admins as well, instead of having to sort through the history for the votes?
101:
He got it before this system was established. His nomination or self-nomination (I don't know which) occurred on the
Mailing list or some obscure place on Knowledge. He received some but not much opposition (only Mav if I'm correct).
307:
when the latest comment on them was barely a day old? Archiving is important, yes, but I think we should establish that an archive should only be made after a decent amount of time has passed since the last comment to the section.
57:
OK, it's me who has a problem with deleting things. I think it is part of
Knowledge so this things should not be removed. But if that is the current policy, I will at least save my part on my User-page... schade...
176:
Sorry about how the adminship nomination went. I guess that you wouldn't want to deal with all the pointless bickering and politicking. Oh well, it's the community's loss. Good job on the
Continuation War, btw.
473:
I wouldn't mind an archive by topic, myself, to supplement (rather than replace) the archives by date. Some time when I feel like massive wikiprocrastination I may do this, unless someone beats me to it.
377:
There's scalability issues involved. If we left discussions until the last comment in the section was a week old, we'd already have a talk page well in excess of 200kb. This will get worse over time. --
1015:
We could sign
Essjaybot up to do most of the archiving, with a longish time period before archiving (7 days?), which wouldn't preclude manual archiving of threads that finish up sooner than that.
498:
I am curious abut a specific, approved RfA, and I would like to do further research. Alas, I am unable to figure out how to locate this user's RfA. Where are the RfA archives held?? Thanks,
396:
There has to be a better solution of hiding it away in an archive somewhere; perhaps a
Village Pump-style system for discussions based on various topics related to RFA?
871:
745:
724:
582:
491:
296:
225:
192:
169:
160:
32:
589:
If I wanted to read a user's RfA from the past, how would I find it? Are succesful RfA's stored and is there a list that I can't find cos I'm being really dumb? --
961:
741:
638:
233:
350:
valid. I don't think we lose anything by leaving a few sections for a few days longer, so why not say a week after the last comment in a section, archive it?
651:
624:
556:
328:
The alturnative may be that the page becomes uneditable due to size we also know from a lot of past exprence that all this talk of reform wont go anywhere.
73:
Just to clarify - as is suggested below, we didn't have this page until June 14, 2003. Before that, virtually all sysop requests were made via the WikiEN-L
980:
I don't see a problem with the bot archiving this page, given that it's already being used on a number of other high-profile pages already. Thanks!
659:
535:
432:
scalable than dozens of archive pages. Here on this talk page, the standard is multiple archives and I'm not going to upset that cart :) --
998:
Sometimes doing it by hand is the best way to archive dead discussions, where line comments are added which are not related to the core topic.
938:
It is? The bot hits 100% on archiving to exactly the right page, exactly on schedule, and never misses a post that should be archived...
835:
804:
757:
598:
878:
Just stopped by to say I noticed most of the archiving here being done by a small group of individuals, and to offer the services of
506:
655:
620:
531:
520:
209:
915:
409:
363:
321:
663:
145:
603:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=Requests+for+adminship%2F_______&namespace=4
924:
As archiving by hand is usually superior to bot archiving and we have people who do it, why should we use a bot?
795:
so it is more prominent. I will add a link to archived RFA applications as well so otehrs dont get confused :D --
405:
359:
317:
21:
39:
Hi, I can't find the nominations before 15:17, 14 Jun 2003 . Where are they moved to, or are they deleted?
568:
An even easier option is to Google! Just type "adminship YOURNAME" and Google will do the rest for you. -
478:
74:
703:
546:
611:
855:
Maybe keep a link to the latest archive directly on this page, save people clicking around. Regards,
986:
907:
856:
789:
573:
260:
253:
451:
I agree with Durin. If we dont archive regularly, it is mighty difficult to follow what's going on.
513:
269:
265:
285:
1004:
879:
475:
457:
401:
355:
313:
212:
unless anyone objects to it being there. I'm not convinced it's needed or a good idea though.
1016:
947:
891:
771:
733:
697:
606:
539:
237:
216:
93:, to understand the discussion better. Is it somewhere, I can not find it in the history...
981:
968:
928:
831:
800:
753:
569:
499:
248:
201:
149:
281:
658:
is not alphabetical, but rather chronological, making it harder to look up. You can use
590:
560:
133:
78:
48:
114:
628:
510:
999:
642:
452:
397:
351:
309:
118:
94:
59:
40:
17:
940:
884:
687:
213:
103:
770:
recently as today! But no harm done, it was petering out anyway. Thanks again.
965:
925:
524:
433:
378:
339:
605:
but replacing the _____ with the first few characters of their username. --
329:
244:
623:. It contains links to all the successful RfAs. For those that failed, see
519:
If the RfA was successful, you might be able to locate it on the list at
184:
178:
156:
90:
77:(or the Knowledge-L list before the WikiEN-L list was established). --
882:
to do regular archiving of the page. Thoughts, comments, objections?
822:
Ok done, what do you all reckon - look ok? it does overlap the top
113:
No, it was more than one person to oppose him being a sysop. Read
685:"Ctrl + F" + username also works well on Recently created admins.
232:
I archived the exceedingly long list of
Archives to an Archive at
530:
And if you don't want to have to scan the chronologically listed
115:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003150.html
905:
I see no problems with (re?)instating your bot at archiver. --
740:
It was archived (check the page history) to the normal place (
748:. There is an archive header at the top of this page!! --
210:
Knowledge:Recently created admins#Unsupported applications
509:
should work unless someone's been doing something odd. --
602:
304:
601:- if you end up with a failed first attempt, then try
908:
132:Jimbo Wales decided to overrule these concerns. --
599:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Their user name
534:, you can first look up their adminship date at
280:Only if the archive-archive is aware of its own
155:
507:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/YOUR NAME HERE
742:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archives
234:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archives
8:
652:Knowledge:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies
625:Knowledge:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies
557:Knowledge:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies
490:Where can I get the record on an old RfA?? (
597:Your best chance is going to be to look at
536:List of Administrators (with service dates)
650:If you are looking for a specific person,
245:Should we archive the archive of archives?
284:. (apologies for the lame-ass math joke)
785:No problems I modified the page to use
960:Just, will the bot also maintain the
119:マイカル (MB)
117:, and the e-mails around that time.
7:
660:List of Admins (with promotion date)
47:Removed - check the version history.
89:I was looking for the Adminship of
662:to get the promotion date though.
28:
656:Knowledge:Recently created admins
621:Knowledge:Recently created admins
532:Knowledge:Recently created admins
521:Knowledge:Recently created admins
654:works fine for failed RfAs, but
948:
941:
916:
892:
885:
704:
698:
694:
688:
324:) 14:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
921:) 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
412:) 16:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
366:) 16:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
1:
1009:05:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
957:02:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
901:01:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
664:
639:The NoSeptember Admin Project
547:
540:
240:22:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
1019:19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
994:04:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
971:07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
931:08:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
736:21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
580:
514:∇∆∇∆
481:23:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
462:19:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
436:17:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
381:16:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
342:15:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
332:14:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
288:22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
273:22:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
859:02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
840:22:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
809:21:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
774:21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
762:21:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
629:
144:Discussion of 172 moved to
1036:
634:00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
616:22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
593:22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
146:Knowledge:Adminship of 172
712:08:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
670:05:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
647:04:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
637:You can also look in the
576:) 19:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
204:12:01, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
159:'s comment on adminship (
121:20:54, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
106:20:45, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
97:20:40, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
43:10:02, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
527:18:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
516:16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
502:16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
219:17:35, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
181:01:58, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
62:13:00, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
563:19:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
550:19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
555:And if it wasn't, try
31:Where is the archive (
191:Archiving all votes (
723:Archived Material (
619:You're looking for
187:01:59, 29 Aug 2003
152:20:54, 15 Aug 2003
182:
136:23:09, 15 Aug 2003
81:23:06, 15 Aug 2003
993:
952:
896:
880:User:EssjayBot II
839:
808:
761:
708:
581:Succesful RfA's (
303:Why are sections
263:
175:
1027:
1007:
1002:
990:
984:
956:
954:
950:
945:
918:
910:
900:
898:
894:
889:
830:
799:
794:
788:
752:
711:
710:
706:
700:
696:
692:
668:
631:
548:
544:
460:
455:
257:
252:
238:Ëvilphoenix
134:—Eloquence
49:—Eloquence
1035:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1005:
1000:
988:
939:
883:
876:
792:
786:
729:
686:
614:
587:
496:
458:
453:
301:
272:
255:
230:
197:
165:
37:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1033:
1031:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
996:
995:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
933:
932:
922:
875:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
778:
777:
776:
775:
764:
763:
728:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
648:
610:
586:
579:
578:
577:
566:
565:
564:
553:
552:
551:
495:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
479:(spill yours?)
466:
465:
464:
463:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
370:
369:
368:
367:
344:
343:
334:
333:
305:being archived
300:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
275:
274:
268:
229:
222:
221:
220:
196:
189:
164:
154:
142:
141:
140:
139:
138:
137:
125:
124:
123:
122:
108:
107:
87:
86:
85:
84:
83:
82:
66:
65:
64:
63:
52:
51:
36:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1032:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1008:
1003:
991:
983:
979:
978:
970:
967:
963:
959:
958:
955:
946:
944:
937:
936:
935:
934:
930:
927:
923:
920:
919:
912:
911:
904:
903:
902:
899:
890:
888:
881:
873:
869:
858:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
806:
802:
798:
791:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
773:
768:
767:
766:
765:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
738:
737:
735:
726:
722:
707:
701:
693:
691:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
669:
667:
661:
657:
653:
649:
646:
644:
640:
636:
635:
633:
626:
622:
618:
617:
615:
613:
608:
604:
600:
596:
595:
594:
592:
584:
575:
571:
567:
562:
558:
554:
549:
545:
543:
537:
533:
529:
528:
526:
522:
518:
517:
515:
512:
508:
505:
504:
503:
501:
493:
489:
480:
477:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
461:
456:
450:
449:
448:
447:
435:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
380:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
365:
361:
357:
353:
348:
347:
346:
345:
341:
336:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
323:
319:
315:
311:
306:
298:
294:
287:
283:
279:
278:
277:
276:
271:
267:
262:
258:
250:
246:
243:
242:
241:
239:
235:
227:
223:
218:
215:
211:
207:
206:
205:
203:
194:
190:
188:
186:
180:
173:
172:
171:
162:
158:
153:
151:
147:
135:
131:
130:
129:
128:
127:
126:
120:
116:
112:
111:
110:
109:
105:
100:
99:
98:
96:
92:
80:
76:
72:
71:
70:
69:
68:
67:
61:
56:
55:
54:
53:
50:
46:
45:
44:
42:
34:
30:
23:
19:
997:
942:
914:
906:
886:
877:
827:
823:
796:
793:}}
787:{{
749:
730:
689:
665:
645:
609:
588:
541:
497:
476:Mindspillage
302:
282:Gödel number
231:
198:
174:
167:
166:
143:
88:
75:Mailing list
38:
22:RFA Subjects
18:User:Useight
1017:Newyorkbrad
870:Archiving (
857:Ben Aveling
826:link.... --
790:archive box
772:Newyorkbrad
734:Newyorkbrad
666:NoSeptember
542:NoSeptember
295:Archiving (
224:Archiving (
982:Flcelloguy
962:topic list
872:Archive 75
832:Tmorton166
801:Tmorton166
754:Tmorton166
746:archive 66
725:Archive 67
583:Archive 62
570:Aksi_great
492:Archive 55
297:Archive 39
249:Flcelloguy
247: :-)
236:. Cheers.
226:Archive 35
202:CryptoDerk
193:Archive 17
150:Stevertigo
836:Review me
805:Review me
758:Review me
591:Robdurbar
170:Archive 1
161:Archive 2
79:Camembert
33:Archive 1
1001:=Nichalp
607:nae'blis
511:jpgordon
454:=Nichalp
157:User:172
91:User:172
20: |
1006:«Talk»=
909:physicq
705:Connect
643:Srikeit
632:iggurat
459:«Talk»=
398:Talrias
352:Talrias
310:Talrias
95:Fantasy
60:Fantasy
41:Fantasy
943:Essjay
887:Essjay
828:Errant
797:Errant
750:Errant
690:Essjay
612:(talk)
500:Madman
256:note?
214:Angela
104:Menchi
989:note?
966:Kusma
926:Kusma
744:) as
561:lethe
525:Redux
434:Durin
379:Durin
340:Durin
286:gkhan
16:<
969:(討論)
951:Talk
929:(討論)
895:Talk
824:edit
699:Talk
641:. --
574:talk
330:Geni
261:Desk
208:See
168:See
559:. -
523:.
264:|
185:172
183:--
179:172
148:--
987:A
964:?
702:•
627:.
538:.
408:|
404:|
362:|
358:|
320:|
316:|
259:|
254:A
102:--
992:)
985:(
953:)
949:(
917:c
913:(
897:)
893:(
874:)
838:)
834:(
807:)
803:(
760:)
756:(
727:)
709:)
695:(
630:Z
585:)
572:(
494:)
410:c
406:e
402:t
400:(
364:c
360:e
356:t
354:(
322:c
318:e
314:t
312:(
299:)
270:S
266:W
251:|
228:)
217:.
195:)
163:)
35:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.