Jump to content

User talk:Emw

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Emw (talk | contribs) at 00:28, 2 August 2011 (→wikistats on toolserver: Replied to Sk!d and Peteforsyth). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Emw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rosetta@home screensaver.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rosetta@home screensaver.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.184.97.80

Replied here. Regards, ~ Troy (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Tewari GAN

Hey Emw2012,

I am almost done fixing up this article, but I was just wondering which capitalization errors you were talking about. Can you give me an example of one of these errors so that I can go through and correct the rest? Thanks. --Nishant M (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta@home

Just want to let you know I am reviewing Rosetta@home for GA. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of late, but anyway... Gratz on FA! TestPilottalk to me! 20:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roe v Wade

In what sense was a citation you added in whole, a victim of vandalization? Please provide diffs (page comparison from page History). The added citation is on a topic which, although it could theoretically be added to the article, is not currently in the article and is not the topic being cited. Anarchangel (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The citation had been removed two edits prior to mine, as seen in the diff you requested. While its title wouldn't suggest relevance, the citation does mention in the third sentence Roe's claim that she was raped. Inside the reference is also mention of her recanting that claim, something not provided in the complementary reference to her official testimony. The citation had been added over nine months before my edit, shown in a diff here. Considering those facts and how the edit I effectively reverted was made in such haste as to misformat the reference (see the dangling </ref> tag in provided diff), I think it could safely be called vandalism. Emw2012 (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta@home on main page

Congrats! I was very happy to see it there. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Hey, on the Great Power GA assessment, you recommended that I do an RFC to help settle disputes. since I have never posted an RFC before, what section would it be under, and what else would I need to do. Deavenger (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After familiarizing myself with WP:RFC, I would put the request for comment in the 'History and geography' section here: WP:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography. Directions for initiating the RfC can be found at the bottom of that page. Essentially, you add the provided template to a new section in Talk:Great power and pose a neutrally-worded question for the community to consider within the template (or you can add the question to the RfC/History page yourself, or both). Consider looking at the current RfC's for an example of the process. Feel free to shoot any other questions my way, and I'll see what I can do to help. Best of luck with that, along with the GAR. Emw2012 (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll try filing it now. Deavenger (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I posted it, it should be on the history and geography section soon. If you want to discuss it, it's at the very bottom of the Talk:Great Power under RFC. Deavenger (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009

Re: Modeling DNA's double helix in SVG

Hi Emw2012,

Regarding your query about the DNA picture I created (w:Image:Dna-SNP.svg), The curve was my attempt at making a sine wave. I did this by making a sawtooth/zigzag line using the grid, converting all the nodes to symmetric, then manually weaking them to look smoother (and chopping off the end bits of the waves to get rid of the straight line mess). More recent versions of Inkscape simplify this process a lot by way of spiro paths and angle snapping.

You can create a "band" of DNA by duplicating one line and shifting right a few spaces, then combining paths and joining the ends with a straight-line segment. Then you add an appropriate fill colour and apply shading. Another band can be added by duplicating this one and shifting right an appropriate amount for the major/minor groove. The overlap was carried out by dividing the bands into two (can't recall exactly where, probably at the upper point where they thin out), which allows them to go under at one location and over at another.

For the 3Dish shading, I followed a tutorial I found on the Inkscape website for creating 3D ropes/tubes [1]. Just done it again, and it still seems reasonable easy for me to do:

  1. Create a thick curve (say width 10px)
  2. Convert to path
  3. Duplicate
  4. blur (about 3 seems to work well for a 20px line) and lower the duplicate, then shift right and down a bit
  5. Select both original and blurred duplicate, object->clip->set

The bases were generated from (I think) thick, cloned lines that had been converted into paths. I tried to match the colours that seem typical for sequencer outputs, and did curves for C/G and points for A/T to indicate differences in hydrogen bonding.

I'm Not sure how pedantic I was about measurements and distances/proportions on that image, but there's a diagram of DNA in Genetics by Russell (can't quite recall what edition I have, I think 5th) which gives distances for width of the DNA, distance per turn, number of bases per turn and distance between major/minor groove.

Oh, and I triple checked to make sure I actually had right-handed DNA [2].

Hope this helps, gringer (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images for Uranus

Those are great images, but most of them deal with combat inside of Stalingrad; they should be reserved for Battle of Stalingrad. JonCatalán(Talk) 08:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Human genetic variation

If you have time, please answer this question.[3] --Wet dog fur (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caricature

Actually I called it a caricature simply because, well.. it was identified as one. I've edited the text below the image to indicate it is not; I'll head over to the E M-H page in a tick to do the same. Ironholds (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section Headings

Thank you for editing the page and describing the correct formatting procedures!--DoctorDNA (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. In case you're unfamiliar with it (I notice your first edit was done yesterday -- and over 170 have racked up since then at blinding speed), you can find Wikipedia's manual of style at WP:MOS. Emw2012 (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for recruiting people into MCB! Much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great power

Hey. Recently, a user named Chanka came and is saying that one of the sources, Encarta, listed India and Italy as an economic great power. However, the source clearly states that India and Italy are great powers, as you can see by reading the source, [4]. However, me and other users tried to explain to him that the source doesn't. Can you please come and add your two cents, and vote. Deavenger (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Massachusetts WikiProject

I noticed that you have attended the University of Massachusetts system. You are welcomed to join the WikiProject University of Massachusetts at your own convenience. If you have any questions for me, I will respond as soon as possible. Your participation is appreciated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HHpred article etc.

Hi Eric, thanks a lot for copyediting the HHpred/HHsearch article! As a new contributer to wikipedia I am impressed by how well the idea works in temr of being a community effort. I was surprised to get response so fast. Now that I now the fundamentals of the basics opf wikiing, I will definitely contribute to some computational biology articles, for example the CASP article you mentioned. I will also check out WP:MCB. Something concerning the HHpred article: I have moved it to HHpred_/_HHsearch and put a move notice on top. I have transferred your changes to the new article. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soeding (talk • contribs) 06:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'm glad you found it worth reading.--ragesoss (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accessdate parameter

I saw in this diff that you added an "accessmonthday" and/or "accessdaymonth" parameter. Please be informed that these are deprecated. The preferred way is to put day, month, and year together in the "accessdate" parameter.
See also {{Cite web}}. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microhomology-mediated end joining

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Microhomology-mediated end joining, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Microhomology-mediated End Joining. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this - a move like this should really be accomplished by using the existing MOVE function. Would you like to take shot at undoing those changes and then moving it? I would suggest deleting the new page you created by blanking and adding {{db-author}} to it, and then reverting your edits on the old page. Once a admin deletes the new page then you can do the MOVE to preserve history. Thanks.    7   talk | Δ |   00:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems better than the hack job I just did. Thanks for the advice. Emw2012 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No prob.  ;) Looks like Geni took care of you.    7   talk | Δ |   01:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassortment and chromosomal crossover

Hi, I see your comments about the distinction between Reassortment and recombination. Among people that I work with the words are used differently, and in line with Alberts et al. Another term that seems to confirm the distinction is "assortative mating", i.e. assorting meaning separating the different genotypes. I find the coverage of basic old-fashioned genetics to be generally quite bad in Wikipedia, and am hoping to improve that. I think we need to seek out the best definitions of these well-established terms. Am just ordering a copy of "A Glossary of Genetics and Cytogenetics: Classical and Molecular Rigomar Rieger; Arnd Michaelis; Melvin M. Green 1968" which is said to be excellent, perhaps you have access to it? Nadiatalent (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing importance

Hey there, I noticed you'd assessed Enzyme catalysis as "top" importance. I've moved this back to "high" importance, as the main enzyme article is the top importance article in this area, and the catalysis article is a sub-topic of this main article. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. Emw2012 (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The insect review

First of all, thanks for taking it upon yourself to review this article, not to mention assist with the revisions yourself. I just have one quick question: the way it's being handled now, if I take care of one of your suggestions I leave a note under the suggestion, and then you strike out the suggestion.

So are you striking out the suggestions to confirm you think the issue has been fixed? Or should I be striking the suggestions out as I take care of them? Thanks, A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 01:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and you're welcome. The convention in reviews on Wikipedia (whether in peer reviews, GANs or FACs) is that a reviewer strikes out their comments when he or she considers them to have been adequately addressed. Though it's reasonable most of the time, striking out others' comments is often considered impolite. Also, because it unnecessarily boosts the file size of the page, use of the {{done}} template is frowned upon at FAC, where I would hope this article will end up soon after completing this GA review. It's no problem whatsoever on this GA review, I just thought to give you a heads up for down the road. Emw2012 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You started the review already??? WOW, I really need to get in the game. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 22:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I did some minor work on the article, and there are a couple sections you've not yet responded to. Are we ready to move on to reviewing the next section of the article? If so, Bugboy and I could finish tweaking the rest of the Body structure issues while you reviewed the next section. Just give us a direction to go in. (Congrats on your new username, btw.) A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 12:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from a few small concerns yet to be addressed, the sections reviewed so far are in pretty good shape. Unfortunately I'm very busy until at least Thursday, so I probably won't be able to take much of a fine comb to the article until then. Whatever significant edits I make in the meantime will be to the review. Emw (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I was busy this weekend and felt guilty about it, so the instant I was free I tried to find something to do. Sorry for pressuring you, don't feel rushed. I'll work on the remaining concerns in the meanwhile. :) A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there are a lot of points that are not striked out that have been addressed, does that mean they are not good enough? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 01:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scanning through the review, I count three four concerns addressed by User:A little insignificant that I've left unstruck. Don't worry about those particular concerns -- I plan on tweaking those fixes and left them unstruck as a reminder to myself.
Of the concerns that you have addressed, I don't count any such unstruck concerns. For all of the concerns you've noted as done, I've either struck them or left follow-up comments on work remaining to be done. Let me know any particular concerns you've got questions about. Emw (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: In the review of the 'Swimming' section, I now see two concerns you marked as addressed today that I haven't yet given feedback on. I'll do that now. Emw (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remember that where - were, thanks! Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the classification agian, what do you say? This section is particularly hard, not because I don't know insect classification that would be bad because I am studying to become a systemic entomologist :), but because I am bad at english and grammar and stuff like that. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 19:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thank you

My pleasure. I thought it unfair to hold back the article while I check for issues that may not even be there and certainly wouldn't hold it back from GA; I assume you'll be taking it to FAC almost right away, so if I come across any other issues I'll raise them informally at either the talk page or the FAC page. Good luck, though I will be seeing its progress if you do take it to FAC! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emw. You have new messages at Smartse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tim D. White

That would be difficult for a few reasons. I generally don't see him that much, as I work under his graduate students. Also, I don't have a camera (I will be getting one on Black Friday, but Prof. White leaves for Africa before Thanksgiving and returns in January). Also, I am not too sure how much Prof. White cares for Wikipedia or having his picture on his article, he especially doesn't like how Wikipedia uses the Hominidae = "all Great Apes" definition for everything. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer. Emw (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to lead

The lead was recently changed by User:Neuromancer to indicate that the causative role of HIV in AIDS isn't proven (see diff). As the user also noted in their recent edits, the medical consensus on the issue is that HIV does cause AIDS. To my understanding, if medical consensus supports some hypothesis based on verifying experiments and overwhelming amounts of empirical evidence, then that notion is considered a scientific fact. Thus I think adding a caveat about the unproven nature of HIV's causative role in AIDS isn't just an example of undue weight, but is furthermore incorrect. Neuromancer also added to the lead a paragraph citing research from 1982 and 1983, which I consider more appropriate for other sections of the article if it's to be included at all. Based on that rationale, I've reverted Neuromancer's edits for the second time. I'd like to get Neuromancer's thoughts on this, as well as feedback from other editors -- with whom I presume but would like to verify I share a consensus -- so that my recent reversion doesn't seem like a single-editor fiat. Emw (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Emw says, the notion that HIV causes AIDS is supported by overwhelming amounts of evidence and is not disputed within legitimate scientific literature. It's only "unproven" to the extent that any empirical claim will always remain formally unproven (see Falsifiability); to label it as such in the lead only places undue weight on an extreme minority viewpoint, even when the medical consensus is still acknowledged. The only reason this page needs to even mention that some people dispute the link is because those people are so vocal; this is appropriately covered in the section on AIDS denialism. Putting all those caveats in the lead only places unwarranted doubt in our readers' minds. The other material added by Neuromancer seems to be unnecessary, as there are better sources already cited in the Origin and Discovery sections. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page on undue weight includes this:
Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader.
To me, this suggests that the HIV article needs "more extensive description", including possible revision of the lead. I have previously commented in Talk on the irrelevance of social issues such as orphans in the lead of an article about a virus (which is NOT the same as the syndrome, which is a specific medical term distinct from disease).
More extensive description should, IMO, address issues such as the fact that most AIDS victims in Africa were never confirmed as HIV positive by testing. There is presumption (logical and statistically supported, but still presumption) of HIV infection as the cause of their deaths.
This also suggests that the preponderance of media repetition of known information about HIV and AIDS may create the impression that minority views are "tiny" (a subjective term). Thus, we see what is IMO a blatant POV term such as "denialism" instead of skepticism or "alternative explanations" in the section heading that gives lip service to other viewpoints. Martindo (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious from statistically valid sampling that HIV is highly prevalent in people with AIDS in Africa. As you say, this is logically and statistically supported - that's good science. There are endless parallels in other branches of science. I support Emw's reverts of the edits above the lead. -- Scray (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As do I, for the reasons given above. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Neuromancer

Let me start by saying that I am NOT implying that HIV does not cause AIDS, nor am I implying the opposite. I merely feel that all relevant data should be shared in one place so that people do not have to search for it themselves.

Proven implies empirical evidence, not a consensus. The proper information and citations were made for the body that issued the consensus. Furthermore, if you talk to any Doctor, Researcher, or Scientist, I think you will get a general consensus that there is no fact in science, only consensus. That being said, it is a FACT that there is no empirical evidence that HIV causes AIDS, even if it is a generally accepted theory. I don't see how stating factual information is misleading. In fact, I think that censoring the information is detrimental to the point of Wikipedia. I am not citing HIV/AIDS denialism (which incidentally is not a real word), information. I have included much lacking, very relevant, on topic, scientifically referenced, unbiased information.

I can not think of a better source than the ORIGINAL papers being cited, as I did. Nowhere in this Wiki are there references to the original publications claiming to have isolated HIV. In fact, there are no references to HIV isolation at all, and I felt it important to include this information. I cited the CDC report, as well as the Gallo and Montegnier publications. If you are going to look at something, then look at it all, and the basis for this article are those three documents, and they are NOWHERE to be found in this article prior to my edits. It actually took a great deal of time to locate them for inclusion.

I also agree that there should be two separate pages: One for HIV, and another for AIDS, as while they may be intrinsically linked in the cause and effect consensus, they are NOT the same thing. There are people who test HIV+ who have NEVER developed AIDS and these case start in the 80's. There should also be a separate article for treatments, a separate article for dissident information. It is not the place of the Wiki to hide notable information, however much one may personally disagree with it.

Before you make biased and uneducated statements regarding a degree of scientific and linguistic comprehension that are being debated by Nobel Laureates, scientists, doctors and researches the globe over, perhaps you should read a REFERENCE or two supporting your statements. The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.[1] A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.

To date, there is NOT ONE SINGLE study, paper, reproducible experiment, photograph, video or lab result that supports HIV being the cause if AIDS. That being said, many people, but not all, with AIDS test positive for HIV. There are 10% (Verifiable by the CDC) of all AIDS cases where the individuals do NOT test positive, by means of any test, for HIV. There are another 10% of the HIV+ population that have never developed AIDS despite not taking ARVs.

So I pose this alternative to my edits... CITE YOUR REFERENCES, in unbiased language, supporting anything contrary to what I wrote. I want to see citations to EMPIRICAL evidence references that contradict my edits to the lead. If you can do this, then I will happily shut my mouth.

Neuromancer 10:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spelling

The word you are looking for is probably transmissibility. - Nunh-huh 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:State of GA review for Insect

Gah! Yes! I'm sorry, I've been on and off all week (on and off-wiki, not drugs.) I'll get to it later, I'm on a tight schedule pretty much on today. Sorry, I'll do it tonight- A little insignificant Bloated on candy 18:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that vandal on my talk page! If I'm getting specially crafted impersonation accounts now, I must be doing something right. :) Okay, Insect now. A little insignificant Bloated on candy 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whats Going on with the Classification section.. nothing has been striked out?? Other then that there are only two things left, YEESSS! Bugboy52.4 | =-= 15:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of the issues 'Classification' in time. I don't consider further addressing the concerns I raised there to be necessary for promotion to GA. Sorry, I mentioned this in my most recent posting to A little insignificant's talk page, but forgot to let you know. Emw (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KK, i think everything so far is going good, those two me and little insignificant did, up too you now :) Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hello, Emw. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Neuromancer. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer

You commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by User:Neuromancer, a thread which has now led to proposals that the user in question be topic banned or site banned, or that review of the issue be put aside while Neuromancer seeks a mentor. Your further input to that discussion would be welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another big one...

Man, I could not do what you did for that article in one GA that took me 3.. so!!



Bugboy52.4's
Insect-related Barnstar


I, Bugboy52.4, hereby award the greatest award for all insect-related article edits, contributions, or just helping me or a fellow editor A LOT.
Reason: Sated above ^ "Man, I could not do what you did for that article in one GA that took me 3.. so!!" And it came out nice too I'm sure people all around will benefit from our work, thanks. The GA PASSED!!! -- 02:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Have a good one.. I'll make sure too check on you if I ever need another done :P Bugboy52.4 | =-= 02:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classification sections & Taxonomy

Where does the classification section belong, near the top or near the bottom, and should it be called classification or taxonomy? One more thing, where should the subdivisions be, in the taxobox or in the classification/taxonomy section? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 03:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied your question to Talk:Insect (I hope you don't mind) and replied there. That way we'll be more likely to get input from others who may be interested. Thanks for the barnstar, by the way. Emw (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, what about the name... should it be common (Insects or Earwigs) or scientific (Insecta or Dermaptera)? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 02:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Insect is fine titled as is; I'm unsure re. Earwig vs. Dermaptera. You could probably get more qualified feedback at WT:ARTH. Emw (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great power & G8

As you have posted on the subject, I was wondering if I could get your input on if there is a sufficient source for the addition of the G8 image to the Great power article or if it is WP:OR. Follow the link to the relevant conversation Talk:Great power#G8 Solution x2. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)  [reply]

Answer

Hi, you wrote on my german user page. I added a few comments to the bot approval. Imho the Bot does a good work, but you should use the headings and dateformates that adjust to the user interface language. (This is exactly what my bot does, now running over your previous uploads). Greetings --Schlurcher (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010

Brown and Coakley

Hello, Emw. You have new messages at Doc Quintana's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doc Quintana (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results by town map

Melrose should be red for Brown. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The da Vinci Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar for your amazing work with PDBbot to upgrade the graphics of proteins on Gene Wiki pages. The new images look great! Boghog (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- your suggestions and technical advice were very helpful! Emw (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few more images?

Hi there, do you mind chiming in on the discussion here? (... and FWIW, I second Boghog's barnstar above...) Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Hi, your http://emw.ath.cx/wikistats/ is awesome! Please, add sisterprojects. Maybe you'll need to process raws datas from Domas? Anyway, this would be safer. Perhaps you can ask an account on tools:. --Nemo 01:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Which sister projects do you have in mind? I considered directly processing Domas's data, but it would take a very long time to parse through data from 2007 and insert it into a local database. In any case, I think the page view data should be stored in a WMF or Toolserver database server where it can be easily accessed by third-party web services. I believe there is work being done to accomplish this, but I don't know when it will be done. I began the application process for a Toolserver account a few weeks ago, and plan to begin migrating my traffic analytics tool there once I'm approved. Emw (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. With regard to sister projects: well, all of them. :-) I'm particularly interested in Wikiquote, but such a tool would be very very useful for Commons (most of all) and also Wikisource, Wiktionary, Wikibooks etc. We currently have 16 million articles on Wikipedias and 14 on all other projects combined, so this would at most double the computational cost (for the backlog this is obviously worse). --Nemo 12:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stats tool

Awesome, constantly up to date with the data, unlike stats.grok.se. Really appreciated the new tool. Sadads (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion, might want to add an option with the graph like they have on the graphs at http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Sadads in the chart section where you can drag and select region, etc. Sadads (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stats tool not working?

Hey, Did you know your stats tool is down? Sadads (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is now back up. Emw (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really fantastic tool, but it seems that it stops at end of June 2010 for some pages. For example, I am not able to see data from July 2010 for the following pages:
"Obama", plot: http://emw.ath.cx/wikistats/?p1=obama&project=en&from=5/5/2010&to=7/4/2010&plot=1
"n-vector", plot: http://emw.ath.cx/wikistats/?p1=n-vector&project=en&from=5/5/2010&to=7/4/2010&plot=1
193.156.44.173 (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm sure you know that your stats tool has been down for some days now, but would it be possible to tell us about the status of fixing it? Is it perhaps down because you are trying to fix the issue with data from July 2010? 88.90.162.241 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The host is down because of networking issues, not because of work on the July bug. I'll look into fixings things over the weekend. (A lengthy FAC has gobbled up most of my time on Wikipedia this past month, thus the delays in bug fixing and maintenance, etc.) Emw (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]


July 12 meetup in Cambridge

Great idea. Let's try Le's Restaurant this time, which has some nice areas for 10+ people that are rather quiet. Monday nights are a great time to take advantage of that... you can even et in some nice people-watching out of their windows if in the right plcae. –SJ+ 23:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Matthew Hale (jurist)/GA1

I've replied to your suggestions. Ironholds (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Commons

Hello, Emw. You have new messages at AndrewGNF's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

multichill (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hey WP:GLAM/SI opportunity

Recently we have been working with the Smithsonian Institution to create workshops between local user communities and Smithsonian employees in an effort to better cover their collections and material on their websites and create content related to their expertise (which are all sadly lacking). Most of our focus right now is in the DC Area but the Smithsonian Coordinator asked if we had a way to interact with the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, MA. I noticed you are pretty active in organizing meetups up there. Would you be interested in helping me find some users in your area to work with them? Would you mind me giving her your e-mail? Sadads (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I also sent them the info for User:SJ who also appears to be pretty active up there. I hope the Smithsonian people and you can get something going. Sadads (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:PDBbot for de.wikipedia.org

Hi, German Wikipedia has a quite big category de:Kategorie:Wikipedia:Proteinbild nicht vorhanden which shows protein boxes without images. Maybe you can also run your bot on German Wikipedia. The meeting point for German chemists is the editorial department chemistry, you can leave a note there. Matthias M. (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting

I noticed you're looking for hosting. The Toolserver might be an option. multichill (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you will soon get your tool up and running again. Many of us are really missing it :) 193.156.44.173 (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are indeed. :-) --Nemo 10:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks a lot for getting your tool up and running again! But unfortunately I cannot get it to work with Internet Explorer 8 (it worked fine in June). I tried other computers, but same problem. I get the following error message:

Webpage error details
User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; OfficeLiveConnector.1.3; OfficeLivePatch.0.0)
Timestamp: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:43:34 UTC
Message: 'window.G_vmlCanvasManager' is null or not an object
Line: 716
Char: 21
Code: 0
URI: http://toolserver.org/~emw/js/flot/jquery.flot.js

Hope it is fixable! :) 85.166.148.114 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This bug is now fixed. The tool is now usable in Internet Explorer 8. However, it's not crisply responsive because of the browser's Javascript engine, which is considerably slower than that in Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera. Emw (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homologous recombination

Hey mate, are you still interested in working on homologous recombination? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

toolserver wikistats error

FYI, http://toolserver.org/~emw/wikistats gives an error: SSI error: recursion exceeded. (works fine with a trailing slash) --Jeremyb (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikistats

It was good to meet you at the NYC meetup. Wikistats is great! I'd like to help develop it. Right now's a good time for that, as a coworker and I will want to use it a lot in the next couple of months. If interested, write on my talk page and/or email to work out logistics. Econterms (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolemy's Theorem

Hi

Compliments on your stats tool. But for some reason, it's not picking up stats on the page on Ptolemy's Theorem?? Or am I just not being patient enough - requested stats on other pages display within 30 seconds or so.

Neil Parker (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably an issue in escaping apostrophes in page titles. I will look into this. Thanks for noting the bug. Emw (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess so - Baynard's Castle and Montfichet's Tower are other examples it pukes on. Le Deluge (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raw data

Hi! I was taking a look at the raw data about pagecounts. Each row shows 4 values, for example: 

it Pagina_principale 138752 10106528727

I'm not sure to understand the meaning of the last number. Do you know what it means? Thanks in advance! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 06:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it represents total numbers of bytes transferred in that hour for that page. This guess could be tested by multiplying the number of page views by the size of the page in bytes and seeing if it equals that last number. Cheers, Emw (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Henrik#Wikipedia_article_traffic_statistics

Hi Eric, I just now notice that you answered to third party on Henrik's user talk page, 2 days ago. Please look up and answer either here or there -- I'm not very young any more, and more often than once have difficulties in using any "new" features. TX, Wolfgang. [w.] 15:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Toolserver tool

Hi Eric, I am very impressed with http://toolserver.org/~emw/wikistats/ -- have been looking at various similar tools, and yours has a nice simple, clean interface.

Just two bits of feedback:

  • When entering a page that does not exist on the wiki queried, it seems to report that it does not exist on English Wikipedia regardless of which wiki you're actually querying.
  • In general, there are some wikis that Henrik's tool works with, but are not revealed in the GUI. With his tool, it's possible to find that info by directly manipulating the URL; for example, this page reflects stats on outreach.wikimedia.org, which is not visible in the GUI. Your tool does not appear to pass this info through the URL; if there were a way to access this info through your tool somehow, that would be great.

Thanks for providing this tool, and hope the feedback is helpful! -Pete (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just updated the tool to address your two bits of feedback. It now accounts for the project name if an article isn't found (e.g. 'German Wikipedia', 'French Wikipedia', 'Wikimedia Commons', 'Wikimedia Outreach', etc). It is also now possible to get traffic data even for projects that aren't listed in the UI by directly manipulating the URL. Compare:
http://stats.grok.se/outreach.m/201010/Princeton
http://toolserver.org/~emw/wikistats/?p1=Princeton&project=outreach.m&from=12/10/2009&to=10/29/2010&plot=1
If you think of anything else, let me know! Emw (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is really great! I wonder if anyone will understand what the "Link" link means without the explanation -- maybe some small tweak to the interface (or new name for that link) would make it easier to understand. But, this is a great improvement -- enough, I think, to make me replace Henrik's tool with yours for any future presentations. Thanks for the quick implementation! -Pete (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link above seems to have broken somewhere along the way -- giving stats from English Wikipedia instead of Outreach Wiki. Think you could take a look? -Pete (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The regression is fixed -- thanks for noting it!
If you hover over the first traffic spike on 10/7/2010 you'll see a new feature I introduced about a month ago (and which I think I may have mentioned to you on IRC): inference of the cause of traffic spikes. In the case of your plot, the date of the traffic spike coincides with Princeton being wikilinked from the Main Page's "In the News?" section (see Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2010/October). Emw (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm seeing problems that aren't coming up for you. (1) I don't see the info on the traffic spike, and (2) this URL is, I think, supposed to go to stats for the Outreach wiki, but it instead gives stats for English Wikipedia. Is there more info I could provide that would help you troubleshoot? Feel free to grab me on IRC, too -- joining #wikimedia-tech now. -Pete (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was using a very slightly different URL (with 'project1' instead of 'project'). That part of the bug is fixed now too. Emw (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Working fine for me now -- thanks!! -Pete (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Toolserver tool − some more questions

Hi Eric, i need help, too.

Thank you, Simplicius (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That bug was likely introduced over the weekend while I was beginning work on a new feature. I will note here when the bug is fixed; it should be within a week. Emw (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Simplicius (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question: The tool is functioning well for de:Benutzer:Simplicius. Unfortunately the tool does not work for de:Benutzer:Simplicius/Newsticker. The slash-sign seems to make problems. Is there a way to repair this, too? Thank you, Simplicius (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it would be more logical to allow a choice for different page names along the choice for the projects. One could compare two themes in one project then. However, thank you very much, your tool is the best! -- Simplicius (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another point, there is no data for some days. If these breaks were known and were effecting all articles would it be possible to exclude the marks for those days? Simplicius (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles are younger than the start of the chosen period (example). If the date of creation of an article will be considered, the average nummber will be correct. Of course, this idea has a smaller mistake too, if articles were deleted and written newly. Simplicius (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC) According to [5] it is ok. Simplicius (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortuntely deleted articles are not shown although they existed (statistics, log). Simplicius (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming, my most important wish would be, to be able to use your tool for meta-pages in German wikipedia.
[6] says "The article Benutzer:Simplicius/Diderot-Club II does not exist on German Wikipedia." -- Simplicius (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tool now works for pages containing slashes, i.e. / characters. Emw (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very very much! -- Simplicius (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, this is a small problem. The tool cannot differ small and big letters for lemmata like de:Terz and de:TERZ, please have a look. -- Simplicius (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poke

Hey, could you help the fellow who posted @ User talk:Henrik#Suggestion for an improvement. He posted on my talk page here. I thought maybe something could be written to check if there are interwiki language links, and then pull the hit stats for those pages if they exist. I'm not completely sure if that's feasible. Killiondude (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistats tool problems

Hello Emw, I like to let you know that the "Link" and "Raw Data" links on the results page of your very useful Wikistats tool do not seem to be working. The URL obtained from the "Link" link results in an empty graph. The "Raw data" link results in a series of php errors. The "Download csv" file leads to a file containing only the word "Date".

Regards, Patrinos 07:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrinos (talk • contribs)

Video clips

Thank you for the feedback on the DNA replication clip. If you can suggest other articles which could benefit from a short movie, I would be interested to know. Maybe some sort of intercontinental cooperation is possible. Please bear in mind that I am not a biologist and may ask a few dumb questions.

Mitosis 200*150: prophase, metaphase, anaphase and telophase

In the meantime I have generated a short video clip (about 6 MB / 60 secs) showing the prime phases of mitosis. Please make comments / suggestions as to any usefulness / improvement. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Wherefor go?

Hey Emw. With regards to this old thread, where did your tool go? Ever make any work towards rollup / smoothing data?  :) Cheers! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soon after we conversed, I implemented a feature where the user can zoom in or zoom out on the graph (double click to zoom in, shift+double click to zoom out). There is now the ability to pan, too. The result of zooming and panning is a bit crude, as I've been focusing more on other features. After working out some obvious issues with zoom/pan, more attractive rolling and smoothing seems like it would be a reasonable next step. Those types of changes would probably require significant additions to the flot Javascript plotting library that underlies my tool. If you have any interest in that, perhaps you could take a look at http://code.google.com/p/flot/? Emw (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

File:Nissen-2155 ubt.jpeg Seasons greetings and best wishes for 2011!
Boghog (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011

Year Wikipedia traffic

Hi! Thank you for your tool. Just a question - is it possible to generate top 1000 pages (or at least top 50 most visited pages) for each wikipedia for a year (e.g. from 01/01/2010 to 31/12/2010)? --A1 (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be infeasible to do that with my traffic visualizer, because the daily page view count data is derived from Henrik's tool but that tool currently doesn't make the needed page view rank data readily available. Good idea though! Emw (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. If it would be technically possible it would be great - month statistics is not as representative as the year. --A1 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: Boston meetup

Thanks for the heads-up regarding the meetup! Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend. I moved to Lincoln, Nebraska in January (which is why I am not able to contribute as a campus ambassador for Harvard this term). Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have an evening meetup on the 10th, and a daytime event on the 17th (w/campus ambs). –SJ+ 04:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

page view statistics on about 2,500 articles

Thank for sharing your wonderful tool. I have a list of about 2,500 English Wikipedia articles for research. I would like to acquire the data on the page view for each article during a specific period. As you know, it requires so much time when I browse manually in your tool page in order to get the page view data. I need your help now. Let me know whether or not there is an automatic method to retrieve the data I want to get. cooldenny (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge there is no tool available that allows users to get page view data over an arbitrary date range for an arbitrarily large collection of pages.
However, you could probably hack around with the "Raw data" feature in my analytics tool to get the data you want. For example, see http://toolserver.org/~emw/rawdata/?p1=India&p2=China&p3=Brazil&project1=en&from=12/10/2007&to=4/1/2011. You could write a script to call a URL of that form while replacing 'India', 'China' and 'Brazil' with pages you're interested in (three pages at a time). Each three-page call would probably average between 1 and 2 minutes. Calls would need to be done in sequence rather than in parallel. I would guess it would take a script between 14 and 28 hours gather data for all 2,500 pages.
My tool used to have a feature that exported table-formatted page view data like that in the link above to a CSV file. If something like the above approach sounds feasible to you (and if having the data formatted in CSV), let me know and I'll re-enable that CSV-export feature. Best, Emw (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your considerable response to my inquiry. I can make a JAVA program for crawling, using the raw data table URL you showed me. However, I cannot get the page view data for each article because the raw data web page does not have the page view data in its HTML source code. Please give me advice on how to handle this problem. In addition, the 2,500 article list is formatted in CSV. cooldenny (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The data is written dynamically after page load via JavaScript. The data is indeed in the HTML source code, but that isn't shown in the default 'View source' option in most web browsers. (If you wanted to view the source, you'd need to do so with a browser tool like Firebug.)
So, on second thought, the easiest way to get the data would probably be to parse the JSON response that the "Raw data" page uses to write out that table. Take a look at http://toolserver.org/~emw/index.php?c=rawdata&m=get_traffic_data&p1=India&p2=China&p3=Brazil&project1=en&from=12/10/2007&to=4/1/2011. In the trafficData array there, the form of each element of [(milliseconds since epoch), (page view count)]. Let me know if I can clarify anything else there. Emw (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Enw. I will try to parse the table data you explained. cooldenny (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews

Good to see you today. As I mentioned, I have two peer reviews going on right now, for DNA nanotechnology (review page) and Nucleic acid design (review page). I'd appreciate any feedback you could give! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2011 New England tornado outbreak

I asked for you to get credit on this, since you helped expand it a lot, but apparently it didn't go through. Thanks for the work! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Overall statistics of views

In Wikipedia article traffic statistics File:Zaragoza shel.JPG from Commons has 30 views in 2011-07. In English Wiki it has the name File:... (149 views in 2011-07), in Russian Wiki - Файл:...(64 views in 2011-07), in Spanish Wiki - Archivo:...(182 views in 2011-07), etc. Please tell me

  1. how to see the overall views number of the same file in all Wikis by one click.
  2. how to see the overall views number for all the months --Vladimir Shelyapin 18:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Владимир Шеляпин (talk • contribs)
Hello! Currently the traffic analysis tool only shows up to 3 different language versions of the same article at the same time. For example, you can see traffic data for the English, Russian and Bulgarian Wikipedia articles on Cyrillic alphabet by going to http://toolserver.org/~emw/wikistats/?p1=Cyrillic_alphabet&project1=en&project2=ru&project3=bg&from=12/10/2007&to=7/15/2011&plot=1. Regarding your second question: the tool does not show traffic totals per month (yet). The closest you could probably get to that is to take the page view counts available to the 'Raw data' link, e.g. through http://toolserver.org/~emw/rawdata/?p1=Cyrillic_alphabet&project1=en&project2=ru&project3=bg&from=12/10/2007&to=7/15/2011, and run your own analysis. (Note that you will see a blank screen when you go to the previous link. This will only last for a short while, and the data tables will be written eventually.) Please send any other questions my way. Cheers, Emw (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Emw, but my request for File:Zaragoza_shel.JPG in English, Spanish and Russian results in a message: There are no interwiki links for 'File:Zaragoza_shel.JPG ' on Spanish Wikipedia or Russian Wikipedia. It is because the images have no interwiki links in principle. --Vladimir Shelyapin 19:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Владимир Шеляпин (talk • contribs)
Ah, now I see what you meant. A process to automatically determine a media file's page view statistics on an arbitrary WMF wiki seems straightforward in concept. However, the tool does not currently support that functionality as well as it could. To help support your use case, I will update the tool with two new features:
  1. The ability to determine page views of media files on up to 3 WMF wikis simultaneously.
  2. The ability to select a given "bin" for which page view data on a given article set will be aggregated into. For example, users will be able to select "get results by week" and "get results by month". This will take the page view data -- usually shown by day -- and allow it to be shown in higher-level weekly or monthly intervals. A natural enhancement would be "get results by n weeks" and "get results by n months".
In the immediate future, you might consider a workaround to get page view data for File:Zaragoza_shel.JPG on different language wikis. Simply get the data for the different wikis one-by-one. For example:
I'll get back to you when these features are implemented. Thanks for these suggestions! If you think I've misunderstood what you're looking for, please let me know. Emw (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, EMW! You understand my questions completely correct. I am very grateful to you for your work. I am sure that your program is very useful for many users of Wikipedia. Yours sincerely--Vladimir Shelyapin 16:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Владимир Шеляпин (talk • contribs)

DYK for Population Estimates Program

Materialscientist (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

wikistats on toolserver

Hi- it appears your wikistats appear to be stale, as of the 24th. I'm guessing that is because Henrik's tool is stale, which could be because Henrik appears to be missing since March.

While I may be shooting the messenger, is this anything you can control, or do you know folks that can help? tedder (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder, thanks for rolling with this. As I've discussed with emw before, I'm concerned about these drops, because the raw data of how Wikipedia is used is so important to so many different parties (Wikimedia Foundation, chapters, individual Wikipedians, professors, journalists, etc etc.) in telling stories within the Wikimedia movement. But it's unclear what's the best way to go about fixing it. I believe it was Roan who once explained to me that they have to do with resource allocation on the Toolserver (or maybe some other server), that basically the stats gatherer takes a bunch of resources and is "last in line" when various other things need it. While I don't doubt that the other things are important, it seems what might be needed is for somebody high up in an org that can actually allocate funds toward it -- WMF, or WM Deutschland, for instance -- to throw some money at getting it fixed. I would love to make that case somewhere, but as of now I'm not really sure I fully understand the issues involved; so any corrections or expansions to my summary are most welcome! -Pete (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! To answer Tedder: no, I don't have any control over the underlying data. My tool takes its data from Henrik's tool, so if his tool isn't showing data for certain dates then mine wouldn't either.
I've considered a few ways that page-view data access could be improved. However, for much of the last year I had been waiting to see where the OWA on WMF project was going, so that I wouldn't invest a large amount of time and effort to have it all obsolesced soon after. I'm not exactly sure where that project stands now, but I don't recall seeing updates about it in the Wikimedia Tech Blog or The Signpost. Given that Domas's data (which Henrik's tool gets its data from) seems like it will be the only source of page view data for a while, maybe it would be worth scoping out a project to get better page-view data access.
I imagine the first part of the project would be getting all of the page view data from 12/2007 until present from Domas's hourly data files into daily data files, and perhaps compressing them better. This would drastically reduce the amount of data that would need to be downloaded for people interested in having a copy of the data of their own to analyze. I ballpark that there's roughly 2 TB of page-view data available from Domas's archives (65 MB average file size per hour * 24 hours/day * 365 days/year * ~3.5 years since 12/2007). All of that would need to be downloaded, processed into daily-view data, and put into a database for anyone doing lots of analysis on WMF wiki page view trends. Completing this first task would probably result in a file set that was 10-20x smaller, and already processed at the level most researchers would be interested in.
I naively tried beginning this first part a while ago, but it would have taken a very long time on my puny laptop. This effectively one-time job could be sped up by distributing the processing work among many computers, e.g. by taking dividing the work of converting hourly page-views to daily page-views for every month (or two weeks, or week, etc.) among 42 (or 84, or 168, etc.) computers. This could be done on a cloud computing service.
The next step would be to make the original hourly data, from 12/2007 to present, more easily query-able by the public. The data would ideally be available through a REST API and periodic database dumps. I see two basic use cases for this step of the project:
A) Getting historical data, at an hourly resolution, on what times of the day certain pages were viewed. This would not include very recent data, e.g. for the previous 24 hours, or maybe even the past week.
B) Determining how a page is trending since the last update of the data store used for case (A) above. I think third-party websites like http://www.trendingtopics.org/ and http://www.wikirank.com/ may have provided this kind of data before, but both sites look defunct now. I don't know if those sites made the underlying data publicly available in a way researchers could use.
Finally, I would hope that whatever web property and software/hardware back-end was part of a project like this would have the imprimatur of a high-level movement organization like WMF or WM Deutschland, e.g. live on an official domain (perhaps on external servers) and be controllable/maintainable by those organizations. Emw (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i think this is a wonderful idea. Even if i have no good Coding skills i would help if the date would be easely transformable by e.g. using Boinc to compute it. I hope you keep on going and contact WM Deutschland or WMF. Hope they will support you. --Sk!d (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sk!d. BOINC is very cool (I'm particularly fond of Rosetta@home) but I don't think this project would be a good fit. The computing power needed for this project is a drop in the bucket compared to that needed for BOINC projects. Best, Emw (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EMW -- thanks for the detailed writeup -- very useful! I'd like to work toward getting something like you suggest implemented. Let's talk more..but right now I have a plane to catch. (Will I be seeing you in Haifa, perchance??) -Pete (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot me a note any time, I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this. I've emailed these ideas to a few WMF developers, and am looking forward to their input too. Another use case, in addition to the two listed in my previous message, is ranking pages by page views in a given time period: hour, day, month, year, etc. (Unfortunately, I won't be at Wikimania '11 -- maybe next year in DC!) Emw (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PDB Bot & ProteinBoxBot

Hi! I'm finishing up the new version of the ProteinBoxBot, the Gene Wiki maintenance bot. I'd like for PBB to be able to render, upload, and link to protein structure images as it finds templates that are missing image data, much as your bot did. Would you have any objection to me basically forking your code into PBB (i.e. integrating it into its update schedule and translating it from python to java)? You'd be attributed for your work, of course, and PBB's code is in agreement with your CC-BY-SA license for PDBBot. (As a side note, thanks for your excellent code and documentation in PDBBot - it's a real pleasure to read.) Pleiotrope (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pleiotrope -- feel more than free to use whatever code you'd like from PDBbot. If you have any questions about that code, shoot them my way. Cheers, Emw (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emw&oldid=442596566"