This user is watching his watchlist and does not want a TB at this time.
I have absolutely no control over the spam-blacklist. Please do not ask me to de-blacklist sites as I do not have the necessary rights to do so. Instead please go to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist to request whitelisting.
This user is aware of the bot and tool issues that have been archived, and is working to resolve them in a timely manner.
Blue Alert. Any extra Wikipedia Security Personnel (aka Vandal Fighters) would be helpful.
[view • purge]3.9CVS / 2.9RPM according to DefconBot 13:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC) change
It's not drawing its pie charts for me. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
No pie charts for me, and no bar charts, either. Any help you could provide would be appreciated. Howicus(Did I mess up?) 03:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears a new namespace was added. 2600 (Topic), which is a new flow namespace is not defined on the tool. That's the cause. The solution is to define it. Unfortunately that won't happen until Sunday evening (UTC) at the earliest. Sorry guys, I have limited internet resources right now, so I can't really do much at the moment.—cyberpowerChatOnline 07:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
(tps)Thanks for the prompt answer. No rush.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Aaaaah. (Ugh, Flow. Disgusting name for a disgusting thing.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I received a message on my talk page about having removed a deletion tag that someone had added to an article I created. I agreed with the deletion so blanked the page and added a speedy deletion tag, replacing the other deletion tag. So I guess I did remove it, but only in agreement of it. Being that I am the author of the article and it's only contributor I am under the impression that adding the speedy deletion tag and blanking the page as I did was the appropriate thing to do. (In the bot's message is directed me to post here if I felt the message was in error) Thx David Condrey (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion present, so the tag may not be removed until the discussion is closed. That's why you were warned. You'll have to close the discussion first, then you can remove the tag.—cyberpowerChatOnline 09:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Removal of non-free file from book talk by Cyberbot I
Hi Cyber. Forgive me if I'm expressing my concerns here but I really can.t be bothered with signing on for yet more accounts such as at GitHub (whatever that is, and I don't really want to know - I've even given up with Bugzilla)).
The Tools were userped from the ToolServer and migrated to Labs for whatever reason the Foundation thought fit. I 'm not really concerned with that either, but I was kinda expecting all those extremely useful tools to be migrated (and in a way that would be easy to follow and find), rather than this be used as an excercise for the Labs devs to redesign them.
One of the most often used tools is the edit counter and I'm now very disappointed in its revamp. I believe in if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and what we now have is a collection of separate pages, the loss of the pie chart, and the loss of the extremely clear overview that was provided by the vertical editcount summary with its mouseovers. The edit counter is not simply a vanity tool; it's used as an importance source for admins and other maintenance workers who really need to have this oververview displayes as clearly as possible and in just one click. I'm not sure how these redesigns take place but I assume there hasn't been significant community input whtere or not these so called 'improvements' really enhance our workflow. I'll bring this up at Wikimania next week but Anything you can do to respond to this request would be most appreciated not only by me but by many who have not taken the time to express their opinion. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
GitHub is a public source code repo and also a great place to report and manage bug reports. It's a better layout than Bugzilla for sure. The pie chart isn't gone. See three sections up for that issue as well as the monthly charts. Regarding the community input, you are number 2 to file a complaint regarding the new design. I have received many positive reviews both email and on wiki, so I would say consensus likes it. Also the edit counter was very much broken utilizing PHP code that would soon not only be deprecated, but no longer function. There's more details described in the FAQ. Cheers.—cyberpowerChatOffline 04:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I really appreciate your reply Cyber, if the code was broken, then of course repair it - I understand that of course but what has been happening to these tools is not so much a 'consensus', but new iterations of them being thrust upon the community at the whim of just a select view of devs who 'think' they know what the community wants - we get this often enough from the Foundation who are extremely hard to convince even after massive consensus that what they have forced upon us is not wanted. (We do get some good things, such as for example the Neww pages Feed / Curation toolbar for NPP_, but I was largely instrumental in making sufficient noise to get something like it developed, and many of my ideas for it were adopted, but most of this took place through personal meetings with the devs, senior WMF staff, and thos who use it). Bottom line is, where 'repositories' such as GitHub and places ,like Bugzilla are too far away from our home ground here at en.Wiki for most people to know where to comment even if they wanted to go through the rigmarole of registration, passwords, usernames, and another bookmark to add to their browsers. Hence I do not consider that the positive comments you may have received about the new edit counter are representative of the community. I will get my best feedback at Wikimania next week where I will probably start an impromptu track about Labs. PLease understand however that I am in no way criticising all the hard work you have been putting into this Labs vs ToolServer debacle and I do hope that if you are going to London we'll be able to sit down over a beer and discuss it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The code wasn't even worth fixing. It would've cost me more effort to fix it, than to just write a new one, with the modern PHP being used from the start. I maintained X!'s edit counter, as well as other tools from X! as long as I could. But the code was causing too many issues and xtools kept hanging up. A rewrite needed to be done, and during the rewrite we applied newer HTML. So we also redesigned it. Unfortunately, London isn't on my schedule, so you'll have to toss me a beer. Also with GitHub, I can keep better track of my todo list than I can with posts to my talk page, but users are still certainly welcome to post here. :-)—cyberpowerChatOnline 13:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, php isn't part of the code that is responsible for a user friendly graphic display, and I haven't noticed any useful new features in what has been rewritten. FWIW, the tool is down now anyway and the instructions are to leave any feedback here. What puzzles me is why software devs always release unfinished products instead of leaving old familiar programmes up and running until they've finished whatever wheel they are in the process of reinventing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I consider this more user friendly than the other version. And the edit counter isn't unfinished, it's just constantly getting new features.