User talk:Enterprisey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:APerson)
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for User:Enterprisey:

Checking in on FACstats[edit]

Hi -- could you let me know if you have had any time to work on this, or if you're planning to? I ask because I've been mulling over tracking these numbers manually, which would be a lot of work; of course I don't want to do that if there's a possibility that FACstats might happen in the next two or three months. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy IRL, but I'm probably going to have some time over the long weekend to take a good look at this. And even if I don't get to it, it'll definitely happen in the next couple of months, and probably before then. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Mike Christie, I have a bit of the checklist done at Enterprisey (talk!) 21:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Nice to see! I tried it with Brianboulton and got a response that looks right; I tried it with me and got a Python error. I'll check the stats for Brian against my offline spreadsheet (I started capturing some stats and can use them to help QA the tool). Thanks for getting started on this! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright, it's been fixed so that it works for you. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Next question is what are you using for a date range? I tried Nikkimaria and got 11 contributions, going back to 8/13; I tried Moisejp and got 11, going back to 4/10; Nikkimaria did quite a few more since 4/10 than just 11, so I assume you're cutting off at 11 max? I tried a few other regulars and got 11 for each of them, so I'm guessing that's right. If you put a date range in, I assume it will apply to the date of the edits? What if an editor contributes several edits to their review over the course of a couple of months? That definitely happens. Would they get counted more than once? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I already remove duplicates from the list. At the moment, I have it hard coded to 50 Wikipedia namespace edits examined, but I can make it so that you specify how many reviews get listed (like AfD Stats) or that you specify a date range. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
A date range would be perfect, particularly if in that case one doesn't need to enter a user name. That way you'd get a list of, e.g., everyone who did a review in August. I went back and had a look at the other requirements, and I think if you can add a date range, the tool will be very useful already. The main thing it would still need is the ability to exclude nominations, but for other reasons I may be keeping an offline list of nominations, so I could easily combine the two to eliminate those for now. Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi -- pinging again as it's the end of the month and I'd really like to issue barnstars to the top reviewers for September. Is there any chance of a date range, and eliminating the user name entry? With those two changes it would be useful for the main purpose immediately; of course I'd love some of the other requested features but this would be a big help. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not hard to get data for a username plus a date range, but it's a bit of a technical challenge to support date range without username. I have some free time coming up this weekend, so I'm probably going to take a crack at it. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, if it's simpler, perhaps just a function to list all the usernames that contributed to a FAC review in the date range, without the count? I can then plug in the counts manually one by one. Though I'd guess that identifying the usernames is in fact the hard part, so that probably doesn't help much. Thanks for taking another look at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I like your idea[edit]

I like your idea about limiting Draft:Stubs for creation to be about generating lists of WP:RS per topic. It makes the proposed project more focused, and provides a useful step between WP:RA and WP:AFC. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I also think generating only source lists would make the job of reviewing them easier, as reviewers only have to concentrate on the RS policy (and related ones), and more automatable (dead links? spam-blacklisted links? etc.) Enterprisey (talk!) 16:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I renamed the proposal to Draft:Topics for creation, and started a discussion in the village pump to get some feedback. Cheers. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding User:APersonBot/BOTREQ[edit]

Regarding User:APersonBot/BOTREQ status, how does it know who is a BotOp? Does it check for the userbox template? Or do you do it manually? If manually, perhaps it would be easy to look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Approved_requests? Cheers, Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It checks if the the user page is a member of Category:Wikipedia bot operators, which (in my opinion) is a bit easier than parsing the page you linked. If it's giving inaccurate results, though, I'd be happy to add in said parsing functionality. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. Thanks. Dat GuyTalkContribs 21:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The future of NPP and AfC - progress[edit]

Thank you for joining the The future of NPP and AfC Work Group

There have been been recent discussions and some special task pages have been created. for your attention and input. Please visit the following pages to get up to speed and add your comments, particularly the straw polls and priority lists. Please also add these pages to your watchlist.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Weird AFCH diff that destroyed an (admittedly incorrect) template call...[edit]

See this diff - for some reason it went and found a template call that was unrelated to anything, removed the template call, and...replaced it with "http://$3". I imagine this has something to do with finding the nth template after the references section, and replacing it with another template, but preserving its parameters. But clearly there are no safeguards :)

Just a note, I doubt this will be an issue in the future, but in case it was a sign of nastier problems on the horizon, I thought I would highlight it for you. --MarkTraceur (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I'll investigate further. Enterprisey (talk!) 14:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Dynamic a-list[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Dynamic a-list. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications[edit]

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:UnusedCategories[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:UnusedCategories. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

WMF waiting for our NPP short list[edit]

Hi, It's now been three weeks since we created the NPP Work Group and we are hoping for a dynamic push forward for the urgent updates and required improvements to the quality control of new pages.

We now have the attention of the WMF and their development team has made page patrolling a top priority. They are already working hard to address some of the major issues.

The success of this depends on our team being able to keep the developers supplied with the feedback they need - if we relax on this they will move on.

If you have not already done so, please complete your list of 10 preferences here as soon as possible from the list at To do - the WMF is waiting for our shortlist. Please note that No.8 (NOINDEX) has already been addressed.

Thanks for all your help. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #3—2016[edit]

17:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)