User talk:Dragons flight/Archive 1

AFDSUM bot
Does this mean that AFDSUM bot is offline while you're away? 70.55.87.43 05:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be a real bummer; it is an excellent tool that has been a great service. Is there a way to keep it functioning? --Storm Rider (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From your user page, I see that you lost someone close you, perhaps your Dad. I am sorry to hear that.  I am facing something similar and it is no fun.   --Blue Tie 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a regular at AFD, but noticed your AFD bot is not running. We miss you.  Our condolences.  Hope you will be back at some point. --Aude (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

KT extinction article
You previously had issues with the KT article. It's been through a lot of editing since. I'd like to hear your opinions on the matter at Featured article candidates/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event Raul654 23:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Stats
Fantastic work! It's especially interesting to read those stats against the finding of the new academic study that measures "page word views" (even though that uses the October 2006 dump).--ragesoss 02:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * These are indeed fascinating stats, but what I'd actually love to do is run them through X12ARIMA, since there appear to be a few seasonal patterns in there. Sadly, it's proving a little tricky to compile on a Mac so far. Confusing Manifestation 03:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your info is being pick up by the news media as being factual. In view of the new media's two other favorite but unverifiable assertions, I'm anticipating an onslaught of news editorials asserting that Wikipedia has peaked because it can't be trusted and the deletionists are taking over. -- Jreferee    t / c  15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC) This posting specualtes that the Essjay controversy and unspecified recent arguments caused the "downslide", but that Wikipedia's move to San Francisco is an effort to reverse the downward slide. Oh vey! --  Jreferee    t / c  14:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC) This post states that tapering off is expected. The change seemed sharp, however. --  Jreferee    t / c  17:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can do 6% of all articles, why not spend a little more time doing all of the articles so we have an accurate picture without having to guess at the remaining 94%? -- Jreferee    t / c  15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because 6% is way more than sufficient as statistical sample, and because that 6% already took several days of computer time. Dragons flight 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Thanks for your efforts and the use of your computer time. My knee jerk reaction to blame the messenger seems to have company per this thread. It looks bad for Wikimedia's internal statistics for the English Wikipedia not to have been compiled since October 2006 due to "technical difficulties" when you were able to compile a statistical sample. What gives it a worse appearance is that the trend you uncovered shows that the Wikimedia's internal statistics stopped when Wikipedia peaked. Wikipedia has always had full disclosure, good and bad, and the failure to generate Wikimedia's internal statistics for a year looks like we (Wikipedia) are trying to hide something. Not a good thing for an "open" source. You are right that we need to be paying attention to these trends and taking steps to intervene where possible. This post links to threads that show others previously were aware of the downtrend. I'm not sure how this plays into things, but the February/March(?) 2007 BLP change was very significant in how things are done on Wikipedia. If you haven't already, you might want to indicated your sampling method on the stats page. -- Jreferee    t / c  14:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. I really miss my User:Dragons flight/AFD summary ( 5 votes, > 15 votes, 50% <delete <80%, Atypical AfD's). I used to use that alot.

Edits per Article
In addition to Edits per Article, is there a way to get a picture of Size (kilobyte) of each Edit per Article? -- Jreferee    t / c  15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have that info available. Dragons flight 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time we added a methods of _rating_ an article. Ratings would be exponentially weighted according to how many revisions (and possibly the size of the revision) have been made since the rating was received. For articles that have particularly low ratings, we might email suggestions to active wikipedians in order to solicit improvements. The problem is to identify expert subject areas. I can and would contribute a lot more, but how can I easily intersect my knowledge area with the set of "most-broken" articles ?? SystemBuilder 18:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There was talk of this sort of thing on a recent Wikipedia Weekly. – Scartol  ·  Talk  15:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverts
I'm interested in how you calculated revisions that have been reverted and revisions that are reverts. I'm a software developer with some knowledge of MediaWiki internals, so technical details are appreciated. Thanks! -- Bryeung 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Graphs
What do you use to draw those beautiful graphs? 1of3 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5 will getcha 10 he used GNUplot. Raul654 16:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Template:RfA; I'd like your feedback
Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship for a centralized discussion about adding some additional sub-headings to RfA.

I'm alerting you because you're listed at the top of Template talk:RfA as someone that needs to be informed of any changes; if this change will break your bot, I'd like to know before doing it. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions about User:Dragons flight/Log analysis
Hi,

I´ve seen on slashdot an article about this study you made, and wanted to know a little bit about the methodology you actually used in collecting these data.

Some time ago I tried to collect some data on reversion and vandalism for Portuguese wikipedia (available at pt:wikipedia:Páginas mais vandalizadas, pt:Usuário Discussão:girino/Estudos sobre vandalismo and also on my blog and ), but I could not figure out how to identify an edit as being a revert. All I could do is try to guess from the edit comment, if it contained some key words like "undo" or "revert".

I'd like to know how did you find out which edits were reverts when doing your log analysis. Is there something else I am missing that would help me identifying reverts?

(If you could, please answer me in my Portuguese discussion page: pt:Usuário Discussão:Girino) Thanks, --Girino 19:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Signpost article
Thank you for commenting on the draft for the Signpost article about RedirectCleanupBot. I realized independently that I needed to correct the bit about ProtectionBot failing the RFA, but thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'm not sure what, if anything, to say about Miszabot. Best regards, Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Carbon Dioxide and Maths
If you have 1% of something and multiply it by 20, you get 20%. Ergo if carbon dioxide makes up 1% of the earth's atmosphere today, but 500 million years ago it made up 20 times more of the earth's atmosphere, then that is 20% higher than today.

Furthermore it is considered poor form to start off with percentages, then change to other numerical formats. It makes comparisons hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo180 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * CO2 is presently 0.038% of the atmosphere. Your percentages were never correct.  Dragons flight 02:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The ironic thing is I was looking for precisely that information in the first place on that page, elsewhere all I found was "less than 1%" so thought that I should add something about it on the page. Without any exact figures I rounded it up to the nearest percent. I had no idea CO2 made up such a small part of the atmosphere, and it is really something that should be mentioned on the CO2 page. Pablo180 02:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Intro to Carbon dioxide: "It is currently at a globally averaged concentration of approximately 375 ppm by volume in the Earth's atmosphere..." - 375 ppm = 0.0375% Dragons flight 02:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)