User talk:Mr.Z-man

Nomination of Clyde Lucas for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Clyde Lucas, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Lucas (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

How do you delete an article?

Mr.Z-man, how do you delete a page? -- Sitcomboy 5:21pm, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Mr.Z-man! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

When you return

Wondering if you could add "medicine/translation task force" to the popular page stats per here [1]. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

December stats and precedent ones

Disregarding any statistic treatment of the topic and therefore considering only the available raw Wikimedia’s data, the stats of November, I mean those published in November which I assume concern the accessed articles on November, as well as in particular the stats of December (till this point) unfortunately remained very far apart of accuracy. I state this based on an extrapolation made for a sample of few articles that I have analyzed. The main problem seems to be new redirect pages, which were ignored in the stats (Nov and Dec). But not only this; even disregarding "redirects", and aiming to refine the original raw stats, I also subtracted the article's "special pages" and again unfortunately "my stats" remained pretty much well above those published by you. I definitely can't affirm that all the published data are inaccurate, but I can state that several of those take an error around 50%. Frankly, as much your work on this is unique and accomplishes hard work, I think these stats as they are, are not reliable and shouldn’t be published unless you highlighted in it some warning to the interested ones for not misleading them. TriCycloped (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? I can't imagine that brand new redirects really make that big of a difference. Additionally, the stats for December (which were just published a few days ago) should have included every redirect that existed as of a few days ago, so the only ones that would have been missed were ones that were recently deleted. I don't really know what you mean by "the article's "'special pages'", nor how you could subtract them, since as far as I know, there is only one source of raw data and it does not distinguish between anything other than page names. Mr.Z-man 14:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, first of all I didn’t mean that you removed the accesses made by "special pages", don’t worry with that. That was a commentary and may be a new idea to you. Now, all "my stats" are based in a laboratorial degree. Really would be difficult to filtrate "special pages", but this is possible through mathematical estimation obtained per researches done directly with some users and then making an extrapolation, which was what I did. Made as I did, that was not scientifically valid (though the method be correct if applied in proper scale), but gave me a good idea of the figures involved here.

So, independently of this above mentioned, as I said, the published December stats clearly showed a discrepancy about 50% lesser than those reckoned by me, which were applied to 3 chosen articles. Besides, I can tell you that for this study were avoided the usual top 30 articles, choosing 3 randomly amidst the usual first 500 of a category. The mentioned new redirects were a possible clue to you of what could be wrong, but not a certainty. What more could be? This answer ultimately it is up to you to find out it. What is going on broken? More one thing: I was very meticulous in this analysis, I absolutely trust in it, or else wouldn’t alert you. TriCycloped (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless you surveyed thousands of people, I don't really see how you can extrapolate a small survey over 3 articles to millions of people over millions of articles. At least not without a huge margin of error. As I said before, I can't figure out the problem. I'm relying on Wikimedia for the raw data. They are the only source. As far as I know, all other pageview statistics use the same raw data. There are so many possible sources of legitimate variations that I can't filter out real inaccuracies automatically without huge amounts of false positives. It would need to be fixed at the source. And since there is only one data source, it's impossible to know whether an anomaly is from some real thing or whether its from some error. Mr.Z-man 22:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

AFD script.

Hey, can' get the AFD script to work. I have copied the script to my monobook and tried with IE and Chrome. Thanks in advance. PaoloNapolitano 13:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)