User talk:X!: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:49, 20 December 2009

If you have left a request for a new feature here, and it is not fulfilled, please do not panic. I will be going through my archives when I get a chance and fulfilling all the requests. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about you. :)

Admin Statistics

Notices

RfX Report bug

SoxBot seems to have stopped counting neutral votes, only supports and opposes. It seems to have started on September 19th -- in the afternoon it counted them and by the evening it didn't. • Anakin ^(talk) 03:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. –xeno^talk 15:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eew... bumping is evil. This has been on my to-do list for a while, and I'll get to it at some point. (X! · talk) · @937 · 21:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, just wanted to make sure it was on your radar. –xeno^talk 01:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could either get it to show the neutral count again, or just leave out the N column. I'd prefer the former, but either would make it more useful! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automated report of SoxBots

Here is a report of the status of all SoxBots as listed on User:X!/Sox Commons:

Click [show] to expand.

SoxBot (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finished translation

Here is the Hungarian (Magyar) translation of messages.

--Kingston.hu (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Szerkesztés számláló ($1 verzió)
Navigáció
Forrás megtekintése
$1 nem valódi wiki
Üdvözöllek X! szerkesztés számlálójában!
Felhasználónév
Wiki
Elküld
MySQL hiba, légyszíves jelentsd X!-nek <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:X!/Bugs">hibabejelentő felhasználásával.</a> Ne felejtsd el bemásolni a következő SQL hibaleírást:
```
$1
```
$1 nem létezik.
Figyelem: a válaszidő nagyon magas, $1 utáni változások lehet, hogy nem lesznek megjelenítve.
Cikk
Általános felhasználó információk
Felhasználó csoportok
Első szerkesztés
Egyedi szerkesztett cikkek
Átlagos szerkesztés oldalanként
Összes szerkesztés (töröltekkel együtt)
Törölt szerkesztések
Élő szerkesztések
number_format($1)
Névtér összesen
Havi összesítés
Naplók
Blokkolt felhasználók
Módosított felhasználói jogosultságok
Törölt felhasználók
Törölt lapok
Ellenőrzött lapok
Védett lapok
Visszaállított lapok
Feloldott felhasználók
Feloldott lapok
Feltöltött fájlok
Átnevezett felhasználók
Megadott jogok
Megvont jogok
Átmozgatott lapok
Top szerkesztett cikkek
Végrehajtási idő: $1
Végrehajtáshoz felhasznált memória: $1.
Megtekintés más nyelven:
(hiányzik még $1 üzenet)
Segíteni akarsz a fordításban? Nézd meg a <a href="http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/translate.php">fordítási oldalon</a>, hogyan tudsz segíteni.
Tevékenységek
X! szerkesztés számlálója nem működik MySQL probléma miatt. A yarrow (adatbázis szerver) nem működik, és így nem lehet elérni az adatokat. Ez a probléma minden olyan eszköz esetében fennáll, amelyek az adatbázis szervert próbálják meg elérni. Ha csak egy sima számot szeretnél a szerkesztéseidről, akkor azt megtalálod a Wikipédiában a beállításaim alatt. Elnézést a kellemetlenségért.
MySQL státusz
h
n
ó
p
s

Pages Created Tools for dewiki

Hi, at dewiki we used escaladix tool (tools:~escaladix/larticles/) for an list of pages created by an user. But this tools and its operator isn't available since month.

Can you please add a feature to your tool tools:~soxred93/pages/ so that we could also use it at dewiki (at special:Contributions)? Today i also changed the edit counter link to your tool. Please let me know if i can help you by translating some messages. Merl issimo 14:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tool “Pages created”

Hallo,

can you extent, please, your tool “Pages created” also for other wikis, like your phantastic “Edit counter”? I normally work in the german wiki and so I can't use it.

With best regards Martin Geisler (de.wiki) --Geisler Martin (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, now it works on the german wiki. --Geisler Martin (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tool

Hi, can you create a tool for new articles by user like this ([1])? Bwag (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. (X! · talk) · @106 · 01:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already added it yesterday [2]. Merl issimo 06:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! Bwag (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Soviet Russia, Russian adds you

Do you plan to add a Russian translation to your edit counter? I've posted it at [[3]] some months ago. SarRus (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. It's taking a while, though. (X! · talk) · @792 · 17:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thankspam

Hello, X!! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice.

KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Tool for Wikipedians in High/scope

I posted a message on Tide rolls (talk · contribs)'s talk page, and I was wondering, if you can make a tool for my school, as for those with a Wikipedia account and the two IPs (202.47.69.212/3) are the ones needed to be watched. I intend to create a group for those interested in becoming a Wikipedian, and when the group is established, I need you to create a tool for the schools administrators, and me (as I have a Twinkle feature), so that we can monitor each IP and account activity during school hours. Huggle is for the world wide use, while the tool I am suggesting is for a limited number of users (those who edit in school). If you are finished with the tool, please give me a script so that I can use the tool. Thanks! _{Führer der Wikipedia!|DAS WAR EIN BEFEHL!} 05:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need this to be a standalone application that you run on your computer, or one on my toolserver account? On my toolserver account, I could use Javascript to make the page update by itself, if that'll suffice. (X! · talk) · @924 · 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need it on a toolserver. I'm sorry if I confused you with my new signature, just changed it recently, and oh well anyways, if it's done, tell me about it on my talk page! 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 08:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost

Editorial: A digital restoration

Election report: ArbCom election in full swing

Interview: Interview with David G. Post

News and notes: Wikipedia's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more

In the news: Ron Livingston sues vandal, disclosure of IP address ordered, brief headlines

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminstats

Hi there. I added the adminstats template to my userpage on 4 December, and it hasn't been updated/created yet. Is the bot still doing it, or has another one picked it up? I'm not sure whether adminstatsbot does the runs for individual pages, or if it's just focused on the JamesR page, or if it's unrelated to either!

Any info gratefully recieved. Ta. Ged UK 14:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you gave it a push, but it's now updated. Thanks! Ged UK 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automated report of SoxBots

Here is a report of the status of all SoxBots as listed on User:X!/Sox Commons:

Click [show] to expand.

SoxBot (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please archive your talk page soon; it takes a very long time to load on a slow connection, especially considering all those collapsibles have to load the full code and render in the browser before they become collapsible. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back

Nice to see you off break X!, welcome back to the grind :D. —nn123645 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA tallies

Hey, it's nice to see you active again. I am curious how {{rfatally}} works; I did not even know about it until right now because I departed before it was created. I was looking at my older contribs and saw my updates of RfA tallies, and since there is a template for that now, I don't know if I can start updating again. Since you created the template page, I was hoping you would know how that template works. Thanks! Schfifty3 23:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That template uses a modified version of Tangotango's RFA library to parse out each RfA page. Each time it updates the tallies, it is reparsing the RfA from scratch. In other words, no edit to the {{rfatally}} page will be looked at by the bot; it just regenerates the page from scratch every time. (X! · talk) · @733 · 16:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

Hi, I posted this over at Shoemaker's Holiday's talk page, but he appears to be on a leave of absence so I'll ask you instead, as you are also a featured sound director. I'm thinking of uploading some of my files to Wikipedia or Commons, but I'm not sure how they stand with regards to copyright law. In particular I'm wondering if sounds published and copyrighted before 1923 are in the public domain, as it is with print sources. It would make sense that sound recordings be included here as well, but it appears that some lawyers think otherwise, with different provisions for sound recordings such as those stated on this page. What is our practice for uploading pre-1923 sound files? Any help is appreciated. Them From Space 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not the best when it comes to copyright. I was under the assumption that sound files were also under those copyright rules, but I could be wrong. You might want to ask at the WP:MCQ. (X! · talk) · @732 · 16:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 51 supports, 4 opposes, and 3 neutrals.

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Counter * Typo in German translation

*Namespace totals

misspelled: Namesräume gesamt
correct: Namensräume gesamt

I guess you got the translation from a native German speaker and you inserted the entire block literally. So, I blame the Germans and absolve you.

Thanx for your beautiful picture. BTW: With a previous tool there has been an option Userpage/Editcounter

Month-Graph:no
Namespacesum-Graph:yes
Weekday-Graph:no
Hour-Graph:no
Usercontributions:yes

Could we expect to protect certain privacy by limiting possibly undesired statistics? --SHZ.de (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix the spelling errors now. With my upcoming replacement to the edit counter, I'm going to be sure to have the User:Example/Editcounter functionality. (X! · talk) · @729 · 16:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Counter

Hi..I think there is a problem with the edit counter..Its showing my edits counts same for the past 2 hours.. arun talk 17:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was most likely a few hours of lag between the database servers, meaning that data was a couple hours behind. Whatever the problem, it looks solved now. (X! · talk) · @920 · 21:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving mistake?

Hello, and thanks for the reply. I already saw that a bot was updating the User:X!/Tally page, so I guess I no longer have a need to update tallies. :-( Irrelevant to RfA tallies, I noticed in your archive box that January 2008 comes before December 2006. Is this a programming error in ClueBot III that can be fixed, or has it been resolved? Have a great day. Schfifty3 00:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Goersuicide.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Goersuicide.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hux (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Range Contributions

Hello, thanx for your great tool. Would it be possible to extend it to other wikipedias? The german one? --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup

So, do you think you'll be able to set the bot up for WikiCup scoring in 2010? We can talk details on IRC if you'd like. iMatthew ^talk at 17:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soxred93 tools

Thanks for the excellent tools. But even the best can be improved. Can you perhaps further categorise the edits like:

no of created pages (Since you already have a list of created pages, you'll have no trouble with this one.)
no of created disambiguation pages
no of text edits
no of moves
no of rediretcs

And one last thing, is it possible to link the no of edit figures from your tool page to personal pages of the users ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tools:~soxred93/pages - Click "View all" at the bottom, and look at the last number. It's hacky, but it's accurate.
This is a good idea, and it seems doable. I'll add it to my todo list.
I'm not sure what text edits is, please explain.
tools:~soxred93/ec - It's in the log counts section.
See #1
If you mean have the counts automatically update, no. You can, however, link directly using [[tools:~soxred93/ec/Example|Edit count]].

Hope this helps! (X! · talk) · @224 · 04:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy WikiBirthday!

Hey X!, I noticed that you started editing 3 years ago today. Here's wishing a happy WikiBirthday to an editor who's one of the biggest assets to the project, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, X!, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

File:18th Birthday.jpg

MisterWiki talk contribs 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, happy returns to you, happy returns of the day, and the fact that it is 4 days late kinda makes up for this! =D Set Sail For The Seven Seas 8° 40' 30" NET 00:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys! It's nice to see that you guys remembered, since I forgot. :P (X! · talk) · @222 · 04:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automated report of SoxBots

Here is a report of the status of all SoxBots as listed on User:X!/Sox Commons:

Click [show] to expand.

SoxBot (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminstats

Has not run an Adminstats update since 9th December. Maybe it need a kick? :-) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania – Sri Lanka relations

Hi. Could you please transfer the latest version of this page to User:Cdogsimmons/Romania – Sri Lanka relations so I can continue to work on it as I proceed with a deletion review. Thank you.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (X! · talk) · @768 · 17:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to proceed with the review, first, let me invite you to revisit your decision to delete this article. Since this discussion was previously wrongly closed early (it was closed before 7 days had passed by User:Sandstein) I don't think this discussion had a full seven days to be discussed before you closed it. Second, there was clearly a disagreement about whether it should have been kept. (1 Strong Keep vote, 2 Keep votes, 5 delete votes in addition to the nomination, and 1 week delete vote). Of course, as you know, deletion of an article is not just a vote, and in the event that there is a doubt, the article should be kept. (See number 4 at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deciding_whether_to_delete. Third, it was clear that 3 of the delete votes based their opinion on the idea that no 3rd party independent sources existed, something that was clearly not true). Fourth, the nominator, User:LibStar, as much as admitted that he had not done a thorough search for sources, despite the fact that the absence of sources was the reason he nominated the article for deletion. He disputed that he needed to do so, despite the fact that WP:GNG clearly says a good faith search for sources is necessary before nomination. Finally, as a matter of policy, the deletion of the information in this article does not serve Wikipedia's general goal of being a summary of all human knowledge. Notability in this situation should really be secondary to the fact that this information is clearly encyclopedic.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that AfD is not headcounting. I have evaluated the different comments again multiple times, and I have decided to retain my original decision to delete. The point of AfD is not to decide whether or not diplomatic relations exist, but rather to decide whether or not they are notable. While the sources verify that they exist, there is not enough evidence that there is significant relations between them. (X! · talk) · @784 · 17:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 542: / Line 542: @@
 ::Thank you. Regards.--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 In order to proceed with the review, first, let me invite you to revisit your decision to delete this article. Since this discussion was previously wrongly closed early (it was closed before 7 days had passed by [[User:Sandstein]]) I don't think this discussion had a full seven days to be discussed before you closed it. Second, there was clearly a disagreement about whether it should have been kept. (1 Strong Keep vote, 2 Keep votes, 5 delete votes in addition to the nomination, and 1 week delete vote). Of course, as you know, deletion of an article is not just a vote, and in the event that there is a doubt, the article should be kept. (See number 4 at [[Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deciding_whether_to_delete]]. Third, it was clear that 3 of the delete votes based their opinion on the idea that no 3rd party independent sources existed, something that was clearly not true). Fourth, the nominator, [[User:LibStar]], as much as admitted that he had not done a thorough search for sources, despite the fact that the absence of sources was the reason he nominated the article for deletion. He disputed that he needed to do so, despite the fact that [[WP:GNG]] clearly says a good faith search for sources is necessary before nomination. Finally, as a matter of policy, the deletion of the information in this article does not serve Wikipedia's general goal of being a summary of all human knowledge. Notability in this situation should really be secondary to the fact that this information is clearly encyclopedic.--[[User:Cdogsimmons|Cdogsimmons]] ([[User talk:Cdogsimmons|talk]]) 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
+:I am aware that AfD is not headcounting. I have evaluated the different comments again multiple times, and I have decided to retain my original decision to delete. The point of AfD is not to decide whether or not diplomatic relations exist, but rather to decide whether or not they are ''notable''. While the sources verify that they exist, there is not enough evidence that there is significant relations between them. <small>([[User:X!|<span style="color:gray">X!</span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:X!|<span style="color:gray">talk</span>]]) &nbsp;·&nbsp;[[Swatch Internet Time|@784]] &nbsp;·&nbsp;</small> 17:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)