User talk:X!/Archives/1/2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question?

Why did you say all those lies to my client? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianPlease (talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

? (X! · talk)  · @313  ·  06:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but this made me laugh. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

SoxBot question

I'm not sure if this is a bug, so I'm posting it here. In this edit, SoxBot indicated things looked good for the requested name change. However, the request was made by an IP. I seem to remember it used to give a warning if an IP made the request. Am I remembering incorrectly, and if so, can we add this to what SoxBot does? Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It should give a warning... but I can't figure out why it didn't. (X! · talk)  · @263  ·  05:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, X!/Archives/1/2011! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Editcounter

Hi X!, I've been assuming that all Twinkle edits count as automated when your tools calculate percentage of automated edits. But I've also heard the theory that the tagging of an article counts as a manual edit and the informing of an author as automated. Can you confirm which way this works? ϢereSpielChequers 13:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Anything with (TW) is marked as automatic. (X! · talk)  · @616  ·  13:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've just checked my own contributions, and as I expected both the article tag and the informing of the user have a (TW) when done with Twinkle. What sparked this query is that I've been seeing more RFA Opposes recently of the "too high an automated percentage" variety; At least one was based on the misapprehension that when you use Twinkle only the additional edit was counted as automated.
I was wondering, as a solution for this, would it be possible to replace the counter that gives a percentage counter with one that gives a weighted edit count? So the person making the query can decide what percentage of a manual edit an automated one is worth from 0% to 100%, but the manual edits remain. I appreciate that this gets us back to editcountitis, but in my view the current disdain for hugglers and others who use tools is even more damaging to the project than old-fashioned editcountitis. ϢereSpielChequers 21:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Or, alternatively, split the tool-assisted edit counts into two or more columns — with the number of edits in article space in one column, and the other tool-assisted edits in another column (or columns separated by namespace). I have to agree with WereSpielChequers that we're seeing more and more people who (at the very least) insist on ignoring all tool-assisted edits on the assumption that none of this activity represents any real effort. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

SoxBot and UAA

Just FYI, the bot appears to have reported a user, stating that they've edited, but they don't appear to have. The bot said to notify you in that case. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Help

Dear Sir, Please help me in reviewing the articles. I am reviewer now since some days ago and i read the reviewing poolicy help but i don't understand that. I hope you will help me in making me a good reviewer and a good Wikipedian. I am waiting for your help. --—just feel it (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

that rfa a couple of minutes ago

I was writing my vote at the time you put it on hold. I hit save and it went from white to yellow background. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 01:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll let it stand. (X! · talk)  · @106  ·  01:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

bugzilla:23819

Do you know how long until we will see mw:Special:Code/MediaWiki/74510 go live? –xenotalk 02:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm told that this should be live within the month. Great news! Thanks for your efforts on this. –xenotalk 02:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for freaking me the frick out

Re your addition to User:Ironholds/header. I went "I need to add the temp- the template's already here. But.. but nobody edits this except me. Unless I've edited it and forgotten about it auggghhhhh *sound of mind shattering*". Ironholds (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah... sorry about the frick-outing. (X! · talk)  · @192  ·  03:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

MPUploadBot disabled

FYI (in case you didn't know), MPUploadBot has been disabled; see here. Shubinator (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Already disabled the process. Krinkle is running a bot on commons (which is where it SHOULD be running). (X! · talk)  · @221  ·  04:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
True. It's still a tad too predictable, but that's a discussion for another time :) Shubinator (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Article revision statistics

Hi Soxred. I very much appreciate the tools you provide. However, it seems to me that the latest changes you made to "Article revision statistics" have the analysis ordered in the least useful direction, ie, with the items of least interest at the top and the items of most interest at the bottom. As a content editor, I use this tool a great deal to find the principal editors of an article, and also which significant editors have been editing recently. So it is your "Top 50 editors" section that seems to me, in practice, the most useful information. However, this list is at the bottom of the analysis, and it can take quite a while to wait for the analysis to load, then go to the bottom, and then scroll back to find the top of the list. It also seems to me that the next most helpful analysis for working content editors is your "Article size over time". I doubt most content editors would look much at the other analyses. So if the order on the page was reversed it would have much greater utility. Many new editors will not even realize you have the list of top editors tucked away at the bottom. Better still would be to just display the "Top 50 editors" list, as before, and have an option to open an "Extended analysis". That would load faster, and immediately provide the information most users would be looking for. Anyway, regardless of whether you act on this, many thanks for your tools. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It also seems to stop after 50,000 revisions, leading to incorrect data for pages with very many revisions (such as WP:ANI). The "Contributors" link will just do contributors and does not seem to be affected by this. –xenotalk 20:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The 50,000 revision restriction is due to computing and resource limits. (X! · talk)  · @918  ·  21:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Figured as much, maybe some kindof disclaimer? Any reason Daniel's tool can handle more? –xenotalk 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit counter bug

Hello, there's a new edit counter bug, i've already filed a issue for it. As it has worked once, it must be depending on some recent changes (unfortunately I couldn't find any in svn, or in the source page). I guess an error in the index.php in the follwing lines: 

$name = ucfirst( ltrim( rtrim( str_replace( array(''','%20'), array('\'',' '), $_GET['name'] ) ) ) );
$name = urldecode($name);

Shouldn't it be first to urldecode? Or is it to use rawurldecode()? If nothing has been edited there, could it be a change in the toolservers database api? Other tools ([1], [2]) don't work any more, too. -- ✓ Bergi 16:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into this. If all the tools have gone down at once, it's probably a PHP bug. (X! · talk)  · @747  ·  16:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention :-) -- ✓ Bergi 17:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please dont double-tag photo for deletion

For the photo of Jared Lee Loughner this bot has twice put in the tage "SoxBot (talk | contribs) (94,772 bytes) (BOT: tagging File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg as {pufc})" in the picture caption. The problem is that the same caption already has a tag to the deletion request. There's no need for 2 tags. Please stop your bot from doing this. Smallbones (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question

I have added what follows on the request page, under the heading Submission on a procedural problem, in the absence of any temporary injunction, because it is not evidence and I could find no better place to put it. Can you please move it if it should go somewhere else? Thank you. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, who is evidently a close friend of Bishonen, one of the parties to the case, has blocked NinaGreen, another of the parties to the case, on the grounds of "tendentious editing", which is one of the matters yet to be determined. Future Perfect said today at User talk:NinaGreen: "Nina, as I said earlier, I can unblock you so you can take part in the case, on condition you stay away from the disputed pages. (Alternatively, I suppose you could submit evidence to the committee also per e-mail, but that's a bit of a hassle.) Let me know what you would like to do." That seems to me to prejudge the outcome of the process, and NinaGreen surely has an absolute natural justice right to be heard in it, so I do not see why she should be asked to agree to such conditions. If there are to be any "terms" of the unblocking, I would suggest they should be proposed by the Arbitration Committee and not by a friend of an antagonist, who must surely have a conflict of interest. Effectively, Future Perfect wishes to impose a topic ban on Nina at the outset of the process. If that is justified, which I do not believe it is, it can be done without any agreement by NinaGreen. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Moved to case talk page. (X! · talk)  · @057  ·  00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have removed a badly placed name in which an ip identifies himself as "Richard Malim", an editor who has already contribuited an evidence section to the page. Should his contribution be moved to the section under his name? If he keeps adding piecemeal comments in this way the page will become unreadable. Paul B (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP has now added his name again in an equally messed-up way. Paul B (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll look into cleaning up the page. (X! · talk)  · @620  · 
Oops, AlexandrDimiti got it already. (X! · talk)  · @622  ·  13:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

soxbot cleaning template sandboxes

Just saw soxbot cleans up the Sandbox every 12 hours or so. The template sandboxes {{X1}} to {{X9}} seem however not to be cleaned although the template message does say so. Did that originally also fall in soxbot's tasks and was it dropped for some reason? Rgds, L.tak (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

SuffixIndex

Mind creating Special:SuffixIndex? --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See bugzilla:10808. In the interim, you could use http://toolserver.org/~nikola/grep.php?lang=en –xenotalk 18:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually did do that a while ago, but it was reverted by TimStarling for reasons I can't recall. (X! · talk)  · @929  ·  21:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the relevant bug: bugzilla:15412 (X! · talk)  · @937  ·  21:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bot problem

The soxbot keeps retagging an image with a deletion discussion (Template:Pufc) in the Jared Lee Loughner article that has been closed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

coffee break?

I didn't know if you were aware or not that SoxBot has not made any reports to UAA since the 21st. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware. (X! · talk)  · @232  ·  04:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

CHU robot consolidation

Though I don't want to step on any toes, I've suggested to Anomie that we might consider putting all the CHU clerking onto a single robot (right now we've got three) - especially given that I'm asking them to work out a way for simple requests to be addressed when they get erroneously left at usurp [3]. Thoughts? –xenotalk 23:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if Anomie would do that. As long as he is more interested in the maintenance, I have no objections. (X! · talk)  · @035  ·  23:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thus far, Anomie has been highly responsive in maintaining the CHUU bot and making it feature-rich (my ringing endorsement =) –xenotalk 23:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
(consolidation tabled for now) Does Soxbot check if the requested name is used on other Wikimedia projects similar to what AnomieBOT does at WP:USURP? If not, can it? Alternatively, if you don't have time: since Chris G Bot 3 can also clerk the page, would you rather have that bot take over CHUS clerk notes if they are able to build the functionality in? –xenotalk 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
e.g. would be nice to check and warn for this. –xenotalk 21:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Will ping Chris G to see if he can build this functionality in. –xenotalk 14:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:X!/Archives/1/2011&oldid=1086814484"