User talk:Henrik

Welcome! This is my user talk page. If you want to communicate with me for any reason, especially about pages I have made or edited, or any administrative actions I've performed, feel free to do so here.

I will generally reply here, unless you request otherwise. Please start a new section for new conversations.

About the pageviews statistics tool, you may want to read some FAQs before.

Here is an alternate page view tool that is not affiliated with Henrik's work.

Wikipedia article traffic statistics

Hallo Henrik, what the matter that the views to articles in Wikipedia on July 12 and 13 are not countet? Kindest regards -- 80.144.249.207 (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2011 (Lothar Spurzem)

Statistics

Hi! I'm Nicolai from the Faroese Wikipedia. I just found the website http://stats.grok.se/ with statistics over visited Wikipedia-articles on several Wikis. How come the Faroese Wikipedia isn't included, and what can I do to include it? Niceley) 01:08 PM July 28th 2011

Annual article traffic counts

Hi Henrik,

I have been looking at the article traffic statistics that you set up. I have a question, is it possible to view data for the entire year rather than it being broken down into monthly summaries? I would for example like to view the traffic statistics for the whole of 2011 combined rather than just December.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.49.184 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It used to be possible to view annual statistical reports by changing the url as in this example

from http://stats.grok.se/en/201112/User_talk:Henrik

to http://stats.grok.se/en/2011/User_talk:Henrik

but I see it no longer works. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

flattr: request of change of the wrong link ( http://stats.grok.se/en/201201/piazza_telematica ) with the correct one ( http://stats.grok.se/en/201201/Piazza_Telematica )

Dear Henrik,

I want just to tag that when I consult statistics at the link - http://stats.grok.se/en/201201/piazza_telematica - the flattr system brings me to the "Piazza telematica" article which was deleted on October 2006 as you can see at this page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_telematica .

The correct and current revision of this old article started in 2006 is now at the link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Telematica - with the word "Telematica" in capital letter.

Is it possible on the "flattr system" to change the link from the wrong one ( http://stats.grok.se/en/201201/piazza_telematica ) to the correct one ( http://stats.grok.se/en/201201/Piazza_Telematica ) ?

Thank you so much for your precious help and assistance.

Kind regards .

--Bitwatt (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC) http://www.bitwatt.com

Userfy request

Hi Henrik,

I need to recuperate a deleted page, so that I may rewrite it to meet wikipedia standards. I am still trying to understand why it was deleted, and the page in question is re-new - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-new

I have in the meantime made a short version, but I'd be happy for any pointers that could help me finish this task.

Thanks, Lars Graugaard re-new — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsGraugaard (talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Metrics

Henrik, Thanks for the Wikiversity Metrics work at: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Metrics Is this up-to-date? When I request recent statistics for the Wikiversity Main page it shows only a very few hits. See, for example: http://stats.grok.se/en/201112/Wikiversity%3AMain_Page

Thanks --Lbeaumont (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Henrik, My primary need is to see Wikiversity usage statistics for a particular page. If your tool at: http://stats.grok.se/ could include another pull down selector to choose the Wikimedia project (e.g. Wikiversity) that would be spectacular! Thanks --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It does support wikiversity sites as well, and yes, it's up to date if you go to this URL: http://stats.grok.se/en.v/201112/Wikiversity%3AMain_Page (note the '.v'). But adding a dropdown for the other projects would be good. henrik•talk 10:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent and thanks for your help with this. I am still unable to get statistics for the page http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Dignity I have used the URL: http://stats.grok.se/en.v/201112/Wikiversity%3ADignity which seems correct from analogy with your example, however: 1) it shows zero page views (this seems wrong because I have viewed it several times) and the link in the graph title does not open the expected page. What am I doing wrong here? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You're almost there :) You should go to http://stats.grok.se/en.v/201112/Dignity this url. Basically, if you're at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/<page>, to see the stats you should go to http://stats.grok.se/en.v/201112/<page>. henrik•talk 17:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes that works! Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! --Lbeaumont (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 290 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

is this how I ask a question?

Hey Henrik:

For complicated reasons, I would like total hit counts on all the wikipedia articles during 2011. I can obviously do this by scraping your data and aggregating, but it's about 1TB of stuff and I would just as soon be a better net citizen. Is it easy for you to put this together for me? If not, I'll scrape what's there.

Thanks!

Matt Ginsberg Mattginsberg1 (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand: you'd like a single number, the total number of pages viewed in 2011? henrik•talk 10:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like a total number for each page. So there are 3.8 million English pages, give or take, and I'd like to know how many times each page was access during 2011. I started dumping all the individual data the better part of a week ago, and I'm up to March now.  :)

Does that make sense? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattginsberg1 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

• Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

• Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

• News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

• Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

• Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dates now embedded in data for stats.grok.se

I have noticed the stats data has changed, internally, to include dates within the list of pageview counts:

{"daily_views": {"2012-01-01": 1018, "2012-01-02": 1311, "2012-01-03": 1228, "2012-01-04": 1234, "2012-01-05": 1273, "2012-01-06": 1366, "2012-01-07": 1113, "2012-01-08": 1390, "2012-01-09": 1455, "2012-01-10": 1457, "2012-01-15": 1613, "2012-01-14": 1538, "2012-01-11": 1438, "2012-01-13": 1462, "2012-01-16": 1534, "2012-01-12": 1577}, "month": "201201", "rank": -1, "title": "Aardvark"}

Formerly, the list contained only the count numbers in sequential order, without any dates between the numbers. Now the entries appear to be scrambled, with the dates mixed rather than in chronological order. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Previously it was somewhat ambiguous which data belonged to which dates - this is more clear imho (for example, you had to know when the json-latest-url was fetched in order to make sense of the data). I guess I could sort it though, but ordering usually isn't strictly defined in associative arrays, and it might be better to do it in the user code.

If you want to access the old data, stats-classic.grok.se still has the old API, but I'm not promising to run it indefinitely.

I find the classic display to be far, far more legible and useful than the new one; however, the addition of the 30/60/90 day tool is a great improvement. The difficulties I have with legibility are: (1) the grey shadows behind the grey bars which muddy the chart, whereas the prior flat but colored bars were crisp and easy to read. (2) Concerning how dates are shown, the current date format is much too long for width of the bars, making the chart more difficult to read, whereas in the prior version each bar was clearly labeled. I believe the new date format is unnecessary, since even in the 90-day display it will be clear to the visitor which series of day-identifiers belongs to which month. While the old version is still available it would be sad for that to go away as you said it may. My request is that instead the old format be updated with the 30/60/90 tool and the new tools that are at the bottom of the new page. Finally, thank you very much for your efforts on this valuable service, which I have used daily for a number of articles for a few years. Coastwise (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just want to say that I completely agree with this. Jessemv (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is part of a complete rewrite of the frontend. It might have been a good idea to give some kind of warning that I intended to change the json format though, I promise to give advance notice the next time :) henrik•talk 15:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for stats-classic.grok.se - I see "http://stats-classic.grok.se/en/201105/Aardvark" will provide the prior quick graph of pageviews while the other is being updated. -Wikid77 23:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Database dump of stats.grok.se

Hello Henrik!

It's good to see you back. The data that stats.grok.se provides is very valuable to the Wikipedia community, but the fact that the entire dataset isn't easily accessible is a major hindrance to researchers. The raw dataset exists in several places, but processing that to a state where it could be expressively queried would be non-trivial.

I recall you mentioning that the stats.grok.se database is on the order of hundreds of gigabytes in size. What is the likelihood that you'd be willing and able to export a dump of that database? If storage space is a concern, given the high value of the dataset I imagine the Wikimedia Foundation might well be willing to host the resulting files. Would there be other technical obstacles to exporting the database -- like limits enforced by your hosting provider on processing or networked data transfer?

Best,
Emw (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Having developed a tool that builds on top of your service at stats.grok.se, I appreciate the revised JSON API (even though I'll have to update my code!).

Hi Emw! Sorry about changing the json format from under your feet without advance notice, you can use stats-classic.grok.se if you want to get it up and running temporarily.

The database is about 2.5 TB at the moment, and my hosting provider has a limit of 400GB per month (it's hosted at a remote location in a different city, so I can't easily go there with a usb drive either). I also don't have enough space for a dump file.. so there are a number of practical problems in exporting it. WMF is setting up a backup service however, I'm working with them on it. We'll see what we can figure out. henrik•talk 21:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Could the database be exported piecewise, then compressed, then transferred? Doing some back-of-the-napkin calculations, I figured the entire raw dataset of gzipped hourly files would be about 2.10 TB ((60 MB average gzipped pageview log file size/hour) * (24 hours/day) * (365 days/year) * 4 years)). Presumably your service aggregates that hourly data into daily data each night, so I imagined the compressed daily dataset would be about 20x smaller than the compressed hourly dataset -- i.e. about 100 GB. Do you have any impression on how feasible an approach like that would be for the stats.grok.se hosting?

During my spare time in the last week I've been developing a program that downloads the raw hourly pageview data files and aggregates them into daily pageview files. If I'm able to get this process efficient enough, I was thinking about distributing the job across a few dozen Amazon EC2 instances (inbound data transfer is free), writing the compressed, aggregated data to Amazon EBS, then downloading the ~ 100-200 GB dataset and making it publicly available. Maybe that would be an alternative plan if the WMF backup effort doesn't pan out for whatever reason. But, of course, it's useless if such a dataset is already publicly available.

Given that, is there any way you could update me if the plan with WMF goes into full swing? Do you have any impression on how long you'll be around for this year? Thanks, Emw (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Numbers on the tops of the graphs

Hi there Henrik! I noticed that the page view stats have a new display. Kind of surprised me! I was just wondering why the values on the tops of the bars are now hidden unless you hover over a particular bar. Before, it was very easy to determine the number of views a page had, and now there's an extra step. I was enjoying opening up the page and rapidly getting that information. I do like the new graphs though, they look more professional. Jessemv (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I second Jessemv's opinion. While the new display is more visually appealing, some of us prefer to see the hard numbers for each day. The 30/60/90 day feature is very nice, could you expand it to include x days? Great to see you back!Smallman12q (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jessemv's point. One other request — could you move the links to the latest 30/60/90 days a little higher than it is now? Right now, if the most recent day has by far the highest readership in the graph, the number of hits is obscured by the "latest" links. Look at http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Italian_Wikipedia over the next few days for an example. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Nice new look. Thanks! --LA2 (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback all, much appreciated. Good point about always visibly displaying counts for each day - I'll try to reinstate the old behavior. I can't reproduce the latest links being obscured though, which browser are you using Nyttend?

The reason for it being limited to 90 days is mainly for performance reasons, I'd like to be able to show an entire year at once. henrik•talk 08:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Pageviews statistics

Dear Henrik, PLEASE restore the previous graphical representation of visitor statistics!!!! This new version is much less informative than the old one. --Elkagye (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You can access the old one at http://stats-classic.grok.se, if you wish. I do think the new one is an improvement, but I'm open to constructive feedback. henrik•talk 20:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I can use it. It gives much better information on visitings, which is important for instance following a significant change of an article. Thanks for your cooperation. --Elkagye (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful to link to the same page in the old tool, and hide that link when the plot loaded. That way people with Javascript disabled can get to the graphs. --Tgr (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

stats.grok.se/en/top

Hi Henrik, will this list be updated to December 2011 instead of 2010? Thanks.--В и к и T 22:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the great tool and improvements. Appreciate if you can support Top article data for the last 30, 60,90 days.--Arjunaraoc 01:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunaraoc (talk • contribs)

Fixing the top list is next on my todo-list. henrik•talk 06:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your statistics tool!

Thanks for your statistics tool! Would it be possible to add the number on top of each bar, like it was in the old tool? I like the new tool, but it is a bit cumbersome to point mouse on each bar to get the actual number. I realy appreciate 30/60/90 feature. Innab (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Great job, Henrik

I love the new look. Job well done, Henrik! Maile66 (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! henrik•talk 12:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

JSONP

Is there a way to get the results in JSONP format? Or with CORS headers, or some other workaround for cross-domain AJAX limitations? --Tgr (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Afraid not yet, though I'll put it on my to do list. henrik•talk 21:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia article traffic statistics

hello,

how do you revert to the old-style grok.se? Thanks. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You go to http://stats-classic.grok.se henrik•talk 21:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks!--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

An oddity

Hi Henrik. Please have a look at the stats page for Carl W. A. Groos House (New Braunfels, Texas). It doesn't have any stats at all on the graph - ever - and it sure used to. Wonder what happened. Maile66 (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I see stats for that page. Not a whole lot, but a few views most days? Which exact URL are you accessing? henrik•talk 21:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I still see nothing. I've been gradually going over the pages I've created, and this one, so far, is the only one that doesn't show any statistics. For the article I access Here, and for the stats, I access Here. Very odd. Maile66 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, how did you get that URL for the stats page? It has encoded the parentheses incorrectly, and has some junk at the end. Try this address http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Carl_W._A._Groos_House_(New_Braunfels,_Texas) . henrik•talk 22:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The one you provided still shows no stats on my computer. I'm using Windows XP and Firefox, if that helps. If I click on the link you provided, here is what it really pulls up http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Carl_W._A._Groos_House_%20New_Braunfels,_Texas%20#7195475257117091628 As to how I got to the other one, I brought up the article in the Search box. And then went to Page/History/Page View Statistics. This is the server

"served by mw33 in 0.286 secs" Maile66 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, Henrik, I can get to this http://stats.grok.se/en/201201/Carl%20W.%20A.%20Groos%20House%20%28New%20Braunfels,%20Texas%29, which shows stats, if I jump through some hoops. If I take an old DYK notice link, click on that, and then change the article to the Groos house and the current month. Maile66 (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

More. As I keep attempting to get it to pull up correctly, the top of my browser has this message "NoScript filtered a potential cross-site scripting (XSS) attempt from [Chrome:]" I don't use Chrome. Is that you, Henrik? The details in the Console read "Sanitized suspicious request from chrome//browser/content/browser/browser x.u.l And then it goes on to say that those numbers at the end are the sanitized url as NoScript converted it from the original. And, yet, it only happens to this one article.Maile66 (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's another error message: [NoScript XSS] Sanitized suspicious request referer. URL (REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_W._A._Groos_House_(New_Braunfels%2C_Texas)&action=history) requested from [1]. Sanitized Referrer: [2].

I think you have a browser addon which is acing incorrectly/over zealously, probably NoScript. It seems other people are having problems with it as well on Wikipedia: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=542057&start=225. I would try disabling it for WP if possible, or disabling it all together otherwise. henrik•talk 08:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it. NoScript has an option to "sanitize cross-site requests". I unchecked that, and it resolved the issue. Thanks for your attention, Henrik. And keep up your great work for us. Maile66 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

New graph style - comments

Although on the face of it, the new style is more attractive, the old one is easier to read, by far. The gray bar against the white is harder to "read" than the colored one against a gray background, plus there is no longer an immediate grasp of the information because you now have to mouse over every single bar—some of which, if you have a really great disparity between days, (such as one day with 35,000 and the rest with 10 to 200) the smaller bars are nearly impossible to detect because there are no numbers to indicate their presence. In addition, before, you could quickly find any given day of the month; now you only get groupings by week. It is, as others have said, nice to be able to click through the 30-60-90 versions, but because I prefer the old information, with its ease of use, I use the "classic" version rather than the new one. Thanks for your work on this in any case. Marrante (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

May I add my opinion that the old style was more attractive and more ergonomic? It was easier to see the numbers at a glance when they were simply printed there. Now one has to mouse over each graph bar to see the statistic, which is a dreadful pain in the arse. I do not want to discourage improvements or useful changes, but I feel this change is a disimprovement. Is there any possibility of reverting to the old style? Sorry to be negative, but that's how I feel. At least I can thank you for the statistics tool, which is useful and which I appreciate. — O'Dea (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Out of curiosit, what do you think of this style http://pageviews.wmflabs.org/en/201201/Britney_Spears ?

Printing number for each bar would be good, but it doesn't work well for longer time ranges. henrik•talk 21:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I like it, it seems to work okay for volatile numbers too. However, it doesn't degrade gracefully when there isn't enough data - http://pageviews.wmflabs.org/en/latest90/Toddler_bed only has around five weeks of data, claims to plot for 90 days, but only plots the five weeks of data (there ought to be a big section of zeros). Josh Parris 22:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The line chart does show the trend well, but frankly, when I go to the statistics tool, what I'm looking for are numbers, first and foremost, and generally of the previous day or days, so the first version is still my preferred one because that's exactly what I get and I get it immediately. The 30-60-90 ability is nice, but for me, secondary. With the first tool, you had the date and the page count right at hand. The line graph is easier to read because of the contrast (blue against white "reads" better than gray), but you still have to mouse over and then you have to look in the corner for the numbers, again, doable, functional, but still not preferable. For me, the best solution would be to have the 30-day chart in essentially the style it had first been, with an option to click to a line chart to review trends over longer periods. Is that a nuisance to create? Marrante (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If I assume that you're primarily interested in summing up the views for the one or two days on which a T:DYK entry appears, would that be a fair assumption? It's a perfectly valid use case, I'll think of how to solve it. henrik•talk 21:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a primary interest, but not exclusive. I do like seeing what an article appears to be getting as "normal traffic", also, a few articles that I've worked on have suddenly become newsworthy and have experienced surges as a result, so these are interesting to view, as well. The surges sometimes are days long, sometimes weeks. In one case, an article I had just improved became a Google doodle in Germany, so I was very glad that it's so easy to check other WP projects. Thank you! I would say that if you were to create a special DYK tool, you should keep in mind that authors may like to see the spikes that occur while the article is actively being expanded and this can last several days, plus some articles linger in the review process, taking weeks till they are finally promoted to the queue. I don't know if this means a special DYK tool is a good idea or that a button or link to the old chart is all that's needed. I routinely now click on "Page view statistics" and then just type "classic" in the URL if I need to see more. It's a very easy, if inelegant way of solving my problem. I do think, however, that the pop-up displays of numbers need to be easier to read because when they appear over one or more bars, you have a problem, a translucent field with light numbers. It doesn't matter how you fix it really, but it's very hard (and sometimes impossible) to read anything over a "textured" or high-contrast background. Thanks for all your work here! Marrante (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia article traffic statistics

Hello Henrik, thank you for your new "latest 30 60 90 days". This is very pretty clearly. Many greetings Sunday --Hedwig Storch (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Сan you make that?

--Андрей Перцев 1967 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There should be a background on the popup, which browser are you using where it doesn't show up correctly? henrik•talk 21:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why disallow viable alternative points of view?

Some articles in Wiki are plainly biased. Yet when a user goes in to make reasonable edits to reduce the bias or reflect a referenced, verifiable, and peer-reviewed point of view the edit gets removed. Why continue in the bias as opposed to researching the edit to include the cites and see that it is a viable piece of information to include for balance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebs27 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We include viewpoints in proportion to their acceptance among relevant experts in the field. Young earth creationism has an extremely limited acceptance among relevant experts in the field of biology and palaeontology, so our biology and palaeontology articles do not, and should not, reflect that view. Those views are however represented in other articles. henrik•talk 21:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Then I should be able to edit the article simply to reflect the viewpoint that this was no transitional form but rather a bird? That has no "young earth" implications and is another commonly accepted and rational viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebs27 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If calling Archaeopteryx a bird reflects the mainstream view among experts, then yes. However, I suspect it does not. Given that it is already a featured article and has reached a high level of maturity, I would suggest you discuss your changes on the talk page beforehand. henrik•talk 21:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your response implies that there can be only one viewpoint. Even though a number of experts disagree that this is a transitional form and those disagreements have been published, the only accepted viewpoint on Wikipedia is one which supports evolution. Thus the reason for CreationWiki and Wikipedia references being suspect. It is truly not a neutral point of view forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebs27 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said earlier, we include viewpoints in proportion to their acceptance among relevant experts in the field. henrik•talk 21:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-new

Hi Henrik,

Thanks a lot for this! However, the page I want to access for editing is the earlier one, that is, the one that existed *before* the one you have made available to me. It was created earlier the same day, as far as I recall…

Thanks, Lars — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsGraugaard (talk • contribs) 15:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Geolocalisation of visits

Hi,

I really like your graphical application which shows the number of visits for each page on wikipedia. Do you think it would be possible to do the same kind of graphics by country or by region ? I'd be curious to know where do the readers come from and to look at some spike in the data specific to some country or to some region.

Cheers, --PAC2 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I second that. That seems like a REALLY cool idea! Hopefully it's not too difficult to implement. Jessemv (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't possible to do with the data Henrik's tool uses. The only available information from the underlying data is project name, page name, number of hits, and the size of the page requested (see here). Emw (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

• News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership

• In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout

• WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto

• Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications

• Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirects and page statistics

Hi Henrik, I have a quick question about how redirects get counted for page views. The 'about' page says that redirects will "split the statistics across two different statistics pages" - does that mean 1 view gets counted twice (once for the initial page, and then again to the main article), or that it only counts for the redirected page? Thanks! Sclemm (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Upload wizard

Hi, just wanted to let you know that my upload script is now overhauled and should be generally in basic working state now. Want to have another look? I haven't yet made progress on your suggestion about different formatting of the warning messages, but the handling of article and filename problems has been improved, I think. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: on advice from User:AlexSm, I have moved the script page to MediaWiki:UploadScriptDemo.js, so it can be tested even without changing one's personal .js. The new method of testing is now:

• Either access the wizard page through the following "withJS" link: Reload with script
• or change the reference in your personal .js to importScript('MediaWiki:UploadScriptDemo.js');

Sorry for the inconvenience as you already edited your .js with the old value. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Copy of deleted page

I got your name from the page of editors willing to email deleted articles. If possible I would like a copy of the article on White Pine Software, deleted in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Pine_Software I realize this may not be possible and thank you for any help. You can email it to tkmitchell@mac.com if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.252.90.55 (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Article traffic statistics defaults to 201012 ?

Hi Henrik,

Thanks for the great tool !!!

Only problem I have with it is when I'm entering date 201201 in search box I'm getting results for 201012. Is it a problem with my browser? I'm using Firefox on Win7.

Best regards,

--V4711 (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Henrik,

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, were 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) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)