User talk:dcljr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please place new comments (i.e., on a new topic) at the bottom of the page in a new section (you will be asked for a "subject/headline" if you use the "+" tab or "Post a comment" link).

Discussion more than one year old can be found at User talk:dcljr/Archive.

The 20-20 Vision of Wales Challenge[edit]

Bore da! And thanks for joining the Welsh language Wicipedia earlier on. Can I draw your attention to the 20-20 Challenge we have based on a few Welsh places and icons? I would very much like your support by writing a few of the missing articles in any language, should you wish. Many thanks and - diolch yn fawr! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Fields Medal page[edit]

Hello there,I'm that user who's been the victim of editing the Fields Medal page(i.e.I got blocked with charge of Vandalism.).I've got three question:1)When the current protected status of that page ends,Does the page current contents remain in place or they are replaced with the old version? 2)I've prepared a new and somehow comprehensive table about Fields medalists.I posted this table on the discussion section of the Fields Medal page,and I request for comments about this(If You come there and see my that table I will be really glad,and don't forget to put your comment about it down there!;-)),but so far,just one person did so.Is it normal? 3)Should I submit a request for edit to replace the new table with current one?Or should I wait for reaching a consensus?Thank You. Rezameyqani (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Rezameyqani (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

My answers:
  1. When the page protection ends, the content doesn't change until an editor decides to change it.
  2. It is normal for a suggestion/question on a talk page to get fewer responses (including none) than one would like. Just wait and maybe more people will respond.
  3. If it looks like no one objects to your suggestion in a reasonable time (a couple of days?) then you should submit an edit request. Oh, I didn't notice it was an official RFC; so, not a couple of days; a lot longer.
My perspective, anyway. - dcljr (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@dcljr Thank you for your generousness.Rezameyqani (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@dcljr Since I'm a newbie(:-)),I don't know how to make a table sortable.Would you mind making the table in Fields Medal talk page sortable?(i.e. the table which I proposed and you commented about it)Thank You.Rezameyqani (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. - dcljr (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Milestones[edit]

Hello, i want to update a milestone same wikis. From Wikimedia News, i want to update 5 milestones from Wikiquotes, Wikibooks, Wikisources, Wikinews, Wikiversities and Wikivoyages. It's possible please ? (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. - dcljr (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I love my revision by Dcljr. I want to save some article for example : Mathematics theme. We're together, ok ? (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If you mean your revision to Wikipedia:Milestone statistics, I don't share your enthusiasm. (Note: The comment above was moved from another section where it didn't seem to have any relevance to the discussion there.) I have reverted your change. The table at Wikipedia:Milestone statistics is completely up to date and consistent with the information at m:Wikimedia News#Wikipedias. The only difference is that the table at Meta tracks more milestone levels. If you want to convince people to do it another way, post about it on the relevant talk page. Someone else has reverted most of your other recent edits, and I agree with their actions. Even though you reverted the articles in question back to previous versions of mine, all of your edits lowered the quality of the articles. Please consider your edits more carefully. - dcljr (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1977 in home video[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article 1977 in home video has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Entire content is included in List of years in home video

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. : Noyster (talk), 10:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits to article "Comparison between U.S. states and countries by GDP (nominal)"[edit]

Hello. I noticed your recent edits to the article Comparison between U.S. states and countries by GDP (nominal) , adding link labels to the category links. That's not conventional Wikipedia style, it's not an accurate label of where the links lead, and doesn't even seem to have worked. What are you trying to accomplish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocRuby (talkcontribs) 19 March 2015‎

Actually, it is Wikipedia style. They're called sortkeys, and they control the order in which things are listed in the relevant categories. Without them, articles such as "Comparison of Xs", "List of Xs", and "Xs in Y" would appear in the category under "C" and "L" and "X", respectively, instead of all appearing together under the actual topic "X". It is sometimes difficult to choose the right sortkey, but the category title and its actual contents usually determines which one will work best. - dcljr (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Wikimedia News page counts[edit]


You recently changes the contents of Wikimedia News in a rather grand way. I can't even wrap my head around how it's possible that an article counter could have a 98% inaccuracy. The Signpost has been using this page for a long time now to keep abreast of project milestones, and so it's a significant concern to us that so many of our milestones may be flatly wrong. I wanted to speak with you and ask if you could provide a detailed summary of the issue and how it's been resolved, perhaps one publishable as a short lead story in our pages? I saw your extensive notes from 2012 but am not sure how to interpret them in the context of your most recent changes. Thanks, ResMar 03:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I am cross-posting this all over the place because I am never sure, when contacting people on Meta, whether or not they will respond in a timely manner; I know I would not myself.
Replied at m:User talk:Dcljr#Changes to Wikimedia News page counts. - dcljr (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions, and it appears to include material copied directly from

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Interested parties, see Talk:Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions. - dcljr (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Milestone tracking issue[edit]

What're the chances you'll have this ready this week? We generally want to run at least one "special thing" per issue and it's looking like there's room this week. Not that running more than one is bad, but we like to keep things stable issue-to-issue, when we can :). ResMar 22:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking pretty good this time. - dcljr (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Great, let me know as soon as possible when you have a draft ready. We have a lot of things floating around in the newsroom right now and I really want to get at least a few of them pinned down. ResMar 20:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Saw you are playing with graphs - my suggestion - open - hit edit, and click preview. Afterwards, any changes to the graph you make will be shown to you in real time. Doesn't work on other wikis. Good luck :) --Yurik (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. But it also works when previewing pages on this wiki. - dcljr (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


You said "keeping the original name is confusing." I misunderstood. Sorry. • ArchReader 12:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think in a similar way, Justlettersandnumbers misunderstood your original edit. I think everyone can just drop this issue now (I'm speaking here only of Just's revert of your edit to the UNESCO_definitions subpage), lest there be any additional misunderstandings. - dcljr (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am happily waiting for everyone to drop all issues. • ArchReader 05:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:Article recounting[edit]

So, to reply to your request.$9

for set in wikinews wikipedia wikiquote wikisource wikiversity wikivoyage wiktionary; do
  echo $set
  /usr/local/bin/mwscriptwikiset updateArticleCount.php $set.dblist --update

In this case $set becomes wikinews, then wikipedia... through to wiktionary. It's then run on the whole dblist for that project. So it'll be in that order, and then in alphabetical order for each project.


command  => 'flock -n /var/lock/update-article-count /usr/local/bin/update-article-count > /var/log/mediawiki/updateArticleCount.log 2>&1',

It is logged to a file on terbium. So when I have access to my laptop with my SSH keys, I'll have a look at that file. I can't remember what exactly it contains, but I can possibly post a copy somewhere. It doesn't contain any timing data [1], but adding it wouldn't be too difficult to do long term.

It's ages since ran the scripts, so no idea straight off, but again, when I have shell access (later today), I'll try running it on a couple of smaller wikis, and then run it on a larger wiki for you.

Reedy (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

[2] is the version of the log as of "May 21 19:32" (last modified time). Simple maths suggests it takes 14.5 hours to run for all the wikis... Reedy (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@Reedy: That's great to know, thanks. I don't suppose it would be possible to get the contents (or at least the timestamps) of the logs from 21 April 2015 or (even better) 29 March 2015, would it? (I suspect they've been overwritten by the latest one, but one can always hope.) Just knowing the timestamps would be useful to get an idea of the amount of variability involved (i.e., is it 14.5 hours plus or minus 15 minutes, or 14.5 hours plus or minus 2 hours). But if I could get the freshly-recounted article counts from 29 March 2015, that would be great. - dcljr (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately those logs aren't rotated (there isn't really anything worth keeping longterm in them, but could be rotated if was deemed necessary. Analytics may have a use for them too). I'll try and run it on some big wikis, and some smaller to give some idea of time. It could be that enwiki, dewiki and such are taking the lions share of the time. Reedy (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)