From your user page, I see that you lost someone close you, perhaps your Dad. I am sorry to hear that. I am facing something similar and it is no fun. --Blue Tie19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a regular at AFD, but noticed your AFD bot is not running. We miss you. Our condolences. Hope you will be back at some point. --Aude (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic work! It's especially interesting to read those stats against the finding of the new academic study that measures "page word views" (even though that uses the October 2006 dump).--ragesoss02:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are indeed fascinating stats, but what I'd actually love to do is run them through X12ARIMA, since there appear to be a few seasonal patterns in there. Sadly, it's proving a little tricky to compile on a Mac so far. Confusing Manifestation03:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your info is being pick up by the news media as being factual. In view of the new media's two other favorite but unverifiable assertions, I'm anticipating an onslaught of news editorials asserting that Wikipedia has peaked because it can't be trusted and the deletionists are taking over. -- Jreferee t/c 15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC) This posting specualtes that the Essjay controversy and unspecified recent arguments caused the "downslide", but that Wikipedia's move to San Francisco is an effort to reverse the downward slide. Oh vey! -- Jreferee t/c 14:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC) This post states that tapering off is expected. The change seemed sharp, however. -- Jreferee t/c17:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can do 6% of all articles, why not spend a little more time doing all of the articles so we have an accurate picture without having to guess at the remaining 94%? -- Jreferee t/c15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. Thanks for your efforts and the use of your computer time. My knee jerk reaction to blame the messenger seems to have company per this thread. It looks bad for Wikimedia's internal statistics for the English Wikipedia not to have been compiled since October 2006 due to "technical difficulties" when you were able to compile a statistical sample. What gives it a worse appearance is that the trend you uncovered shows that the Wikimedia's internal statistics stopped when Wikipedia peaked. Wikipedia has always had full disclosure, good and bad, and the failure to generate Wikimedia's internal statistics for a year looks like we (Wikipedia) are trying to hide something. Not a good thing for an "open" source. You are right that we need to be paying attention to these trends and taking steps to intervene where possible. This post links to threads that show others previously were aware of the downtrend. I'm not sure how this plays into things, but the February/March(?) 2007 BLP change was very significant in how things are done on Wikipedia. If you haven't already, you might want to indicated your sampling method on the stats page. -- Jreferee t/c14:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. I really miss my User:Dragons flight/AFD summary ( 5 votes, > 15 votes, 50% <delete <80%, Atypical AfD's). I used to use that alot.[reply]
I think it's time we added a methods of _rating_ an article. Ratings would be exponentially weighted according to how many revisions (and possibly the size of the revision) have been made since the rating was received. For articles that have particularly low ratings, we might email suggestions to active wikipedians in order to solicit improvements. The problem is to identify expert subject areas. I can and would contribute a lot more, but how can I easily intersect my knowledge area with the set of "most-broken" articles ?? SystemBuilder18:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in how you calculated revisions that have been reverted and revisions that are reverts. I'm a software developer with some knowledge of MediaWiki internals, so technical details are appreciated. Thanks! -- Bryeung02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm alerting you because you're listed at the top of Template talk:RfA as someone that needs to be informed of any changes; if this change will break your bot, I'd like to know before doing it. :) EVula// talk // ☯ //18:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions about User:Dragons flight/Log analysis
Hi,
I´ve seen on slashdot an article about this study you made, and wanted to know a little bit about the methodology you actually used in collecting these data.
Some time ago I tried to collect some data on reversion and vandalism for Portuguese wikipedia (available at pt:wikipedia:Páginas mais vandalizadas, pt:Usuário Discussão:girino/Estudos sobre vandalismo and also on my blog [1] and [2]), but I could not figure out how to identify an edit as being a revert. All I could do is try to guess from the edit comment, if it contained some key words like "undo" or "revert".
I'd like to know how did you find out which edits were reverts when doing your log analysis. Is there something else I am missing that would help me identifying reverts?
Thank you for commenting on the draft for the Signpost article about RedirectCleanupBot. I realized independently that I needed to correct the bit about ProtectionBot failing the RFA, but thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'm not sure what, if anything, to say about Miszabot. Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carbon Dioxide and Maths
If you have 1% of something and multiply it by 20, you get 20%. Ergo if carbon dioxide makes up 1% of the earth's atmosphere today, but 500 million years ago it made up 20 times more of the earth's atmosphere, then that is 20% higher than today.
Thank you. The ironic thing is I was looking for precisely that information in the first place on that page, elsewhere all I found was "less than 1%" so thought that I should add something about it on the page. Without any exact figures I rounded it up to the nearest percent. I had no idea CO2 made up such a small part of the atmosphere, and it is really something that should be mentioned on the CO2 page. Pablo18002:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just wanted to thank you for all the great data analysis. I know that no matter how much data you collect, someone's always going to complain that there's not enough data, or that you didn't analyze right, but I still think the data that's there, is fascinating, so thank you. :) I give occasional talks on Wikipedia, and if it's okay with you, I'd like to use some of your charts in my slides? And yes, I know I don't have to ask, but I'm asking anyway. :) --Elonka18:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I came to the article through a section link and the "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed." tag on it made me think it was in article space rather than userspace. You might want to check if the bots you refer to run on admin accounts or not, if they are merely bots run by admins and the bots do not have admin privileges, then it would be a bit misleading to call these "adminbots". Tim Vickers18:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What admin actions does betacommand bot, for example, perform? Article deletion, blocking users? All I can find in its documentation is that it tags pages with a template. Tim Vickers19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind removing it (but wonder what your motives are in asking me to do so—is it undesirable to attract criticism to an RfA?). Have you come back to WP just to ask me this? (It says "not active" above). I thought it was unacceptable to edit out what one has written at a talk page. Not keen on striking through. Tony(talk)04:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how MOS is maintained well enough to know what is the appropriate thing to do there. Though it probably should be converted to a redirect to the new content location rather than deleted (i.e. redirects are cheap and people may search for or remember the old title). If you are sure about the merge, you can create the redirect yourself. Dragons flight02:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that section from the intro for two reasons: first, it's redundant with the text further in the article, which is almost identical. Second, this is nowhere near the end of the legal wrangling. I'd lay good money the government will push this all the way up to the Supreme Court, so until something final happens, these decisions aren't intro material. If the government drops its case, then it'd be worth saying right in the intro. -- Kesh18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Greenhouse Effect.svg
The width of the Greenhouse Gases coloring was converted incorrectly, and hence is wrong. Dragons flight 03:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay I've changed it now, but bear in mind, I'm only trying to help and i am (as are a lot of people) not as knowledgable in this field as you. > Rugby471talk⚔14:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image source problem with Image:Wikipe-tan-ad.png
Image Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading Image:Wikipe-tan-ad.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI09:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom
Dragons flight, I had no idea on earth that such a question would be inappropriete. I also think that Raul is fully qualified. I'm sorry for the harm it caused.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I turned my bots off when I started my wiki-vacation a while back. I'm still avoiding jumping back into things full-time. Also, now that the toolserver works with en, the category tracker really ought to be rewritten to take advantage of that. Dragons flight08:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope you (or someone else) get it working again, as I think it's a very useful tool. Thanks for writing it, and I look forward to any updates. - Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫19:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Logs
Hi, as I'm sure you know the floodgates may be opened and anon page creation allowed. If so could you run another log analysis like you did. That way we could see how the logs of new articles and deletions change. If this is too much trouble/time consuming then that's ok, I understand that you may have other commitments. Thanks, James086Talk | Email02:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons images
Hi!
Back when I mentioned to you that your images could be watched more convieniently on the commons via the email notifications... remember. Well, have a new capability it seems you should know: see this partial change in Image:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png, and the tool templates {{Cms}}, {{wpd}}, and friends. {{{{wdy}} can be handy inline so you don't have to define things in an explaination!). I left the {cms} in place to see if it was going to a gallery or a redirect as the one link did... but a little global SAR should give your description pages a boost, and make them read well "There", as they did "here". Those templates were developed with malice aforethought of being sister-site transportable, so this is a good use for them.
The other thing... Think the ice ages you have in a bottom bar graph on that page should have a clear source cited. A numeric table of end points on that would be nice on the given dense time (5 mya, iirc) scale. I was looking via the Permian Mass Extinction which corresponds to 430-450 mya, and that ice age, whatever it may be called... perhaps something else for that hypothetical table! <G> (See how good I am at giving you work to do... perhaps you need a new supervisor? <G> Well, you do good work, imho, which means you wouldn't start out in trouble! I gotta run! Cheers! // FrankB20:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I won't have to bother you much, but I'll ask when I need clarification. In the edit sample, for the column labeled "Bot", is this (a) those edits with a "b" flag, or (b) edits by all useraccounts that you identified as bots by (say) using a category to label the couple hundred or so approved/categorized bots useraccounts as such? -- John Broughton(♫♫)02:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to replace it with a suitable alternative. If you don't have one to hand, the 'dead link' tag will prompt someone else to do so. Regards, WLDtalk|edits22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis for Dutch Wikipedia
Hi Dragons flight. I have been interested in your analysis and would like to find out how the Dutch Wikipedia develops. Is it possible to do your analysis for the NL:WP as well?
While certainly possible, I have no intention of doing any more big analysis efforts (for any wikis) at least until the xmas holidays. However, I might be willing to generate an NL equivalent of User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis/wiki_logs for you now. That would cover the logged actions but not things like edit rates. Depends on what you want, I guess. You could also bug User:Gmaxwell, since hypothetically he's doing statistical analysis of Wikipedia too. Dragons flight (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your offer, but I want to bug nobody. The main interest is in development of amount of edits in time. A simple analysis which would not take too much of your time will be excellent. As an alternative I have also found a person, who does a lot on the tool server, willing to perform the analysis of our (NL-WP). If you can release your script and your analysis is based on a dump, he would be willing to do the analysis as well (nl:Gebruiker:Erwin). So either way which suits you best. Thank you so much for considering. Kind regards Londenp (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit count portion of the analysis was not based on a dump. There have not been any dumps of enwiki in over a year. It is based on pulling the history pages from randomly selected articles off of the live site and scaling from my sampled articles to the whole population. One could do the same analysis on the toolserver or from a dump, but the code would be different. Dragons flight (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
has been restored to your account, hope you find it useful. NoSeptember 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I see your point
Ummm, the effective temperature of the sun is a derived number based on measuring the solar constant, not the other way around. If you want a highly accurate solar constant, then using a derived temperature without any specified source or uncertainty is not the way to go about it. Dragons flight (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Ooowah, point taken: I know this isn't the place to ask this, but since you seem to know, I'm not still wrong in calculating HZ median Solar Constant distances for other stars with that formula?? f=(R2aT4)/(d2), from L=4π·R2aT4, and L=4π·d2f.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Mauri S. Pelto, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rudget!
Dear Dragons flight, my sincere thanks for your participation in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget.17:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DFBot
Hi. Perhaps very belately, I am wondering why DFBot is not running for the last half a year. I think it was a very valuable resourse (given how many AFDs are there nowawdays), and my poor bot's (mathbot's) summary at WP:AFD/Old is no longer enough for people. Would you consider bringing the bot back online?
I turned it off when I left Wikipedia for 6 weeks. I haven't reenabled it because I largely intend to scale back my participation here. It is written in Python. I'm not opposed to someone else running it if they really want it. Dragons flight (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is is possible you could get this and the AFD summary running again. It was something which I tended to rely upon to keep up to date with the backlogs. Harryboyles10:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've greatly reduced by activity on Wikipedia and don't plan on restarting the bots, however, I am open to other people running these codes. Dragons flight (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there
Hi Robert, I apologise for my somewhat curt response to you on my talkpage. At the time I was frankly ticked off that, well, despite points such as the one you brought to my attention, the RfB was not passed. I have gained some distance from and perspective of the incident by now, and am less inclined to snap someone's head off :) That said, I'm sorry, and only time will tell whether your second comment is true :) ~ Riana ⁂02:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gratitude, and a suggestion
Thank you yet another time for putting the "complete list" link on the Main Page. Also, thank you for writing the software for the RfA reports, which are very handy.
I have a suggestion for a change in that software. Note the table on my talk page (later to be archivedalready at archive link. 14:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC) here) which describes a situation where my vote on an RfA was improperly formatted such that the count as displayed on the page was different from the count done by the bot. I suggest that the bot be modified to more closely match the count given in the page rendering. In the case where a line begins with a hash and the rest of the line is blank and the following line would otherwise be the beginning of a vote, the two lines can be considered to be part of the same vote. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Check talk Template talk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
What is the reason for the differences between your graph of Global temperatures on Wikipedia....
[4]
and the graph published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies?
[5]
I do understand the reason for the difference in the zero reference level being a result of different choice in the "baseline" years. However why does the GISS graph show for example that 2005 to be hotter than 1998 while your graph shows it to be lower? The obvious explatation is that a different data set is being used but why is this so?
From reviewing a Talk:MOSNUM archive, I see that you were one of the earliest editors to weigh in on the issue of whether or not the IEC prefixes like “kibibit,” “kibibyte,” “mebibyte” (Kib, KiB, MiB) should be adopted. I wanted to let you know that a new proposal is being considered on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Voting on it is ongoing here, and discussion is ongoing at various places throughout the page. I ask only that you very carefully read the proposed new policy guideline before posting a vote. If you have suggested revisions for the policy before even registering a vote, please feel free to do so in the provided “Comments” section immediately below the voting section. Greg L (my talk)16:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article claims there are about 75,000 active contributors for this encyclopaedia. Is there any way to locate them back to the country of residence? Also, where are the requests to the server coming from? I would like to make a bubble map like this.Anwar (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the information that you need. You'd probably need to talk to User:Brion VIBBER or one of the other high level devs for information on geolocated data. (The problem is that you have to make it from IP addresses and IPs are protected per the privacy policy.)
I am editing the template so the result may be completed easily in the template instead of outside the template as in: The result was {{{1}}}. BoL (Talk) 03:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to use it. -- Catchi? 06:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Trademark stuff
I was surprised not to see any input of yours in the renewed Yahoo! → Yahoo move request, seeing that you launched the one in 2006 and remain very active on the talk page of WP:MOSTM. Anyway, I'm going to attempt some restructuring on that guideline these days, to more clearly separate usage from formatting, maybe find a few better examples for some points, update the lead, and so forth. It would be nice to have you around for comments/suggestions/improvements. – Cyrus XIII(talk)12:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSIRO & Hadley Centre data
I've just seen Image:Global Warming Predictions.png. I'm looking for year-by-year temperature projections of CSIRO and Hadley Centre. Do you have any idea where I could find them? Thanks, Guy0307 (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note - the bot has already dealt with this correctly in a wide range of test cases, so hopefully it won't be a problem. Do let me know if you spot any it doesn't manage to handle!
I know you're not around much, so it may be a while before you see this, but I wanted to ask about the possibility of someone taking on Category Tracker. It was such a useful tool (and I even keep the inactive template handy, just to have all the categories); although I know next to nothing about bots, I'd totally learn if it meant that I could get Category Tracker/something equivalent up and running again. What would it take to do so? Thanks, -- Natalya14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BC discussion on AN
Surprisingly not well known, but very common: Doctors routinely get out of traffic tickets and other minor infractions. My father once got a speeding ticket and had the chief of police of our town of about 20,000 people call and apologize. Even in our civil society of laws, exceptions are made even if the rules don't explicitly allow it. Avruch T 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started on Wiki Stats
I have recently started administrating our company's internal wiki, and haven't come fully up to speed on where to start finding resources for my users's various requests. I have been asked to produce a dynamic chart of page creates on our wiki and I'm stumped on where to start. Google searching has not been informative (probably because I haven't hit upon the right terms to get me to the right pages). I see that you have done some stats work on en:Wikipedia and wonder if you could point me towards a useful starting point for addressing this charting problem. -- Fuzzyeric (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png){kind=link}
