User talk:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009

Blah.

Anyone feeling more expressive than that, feel free to replace with your own comments. Franamax (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. When were/are the figures harvested from (i.e. today? or a month ago etc. According to this I am up to 213 edits on Pied Currawong, a latest area of work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They are run with 01Nov09 as the "recent" cutoff (it shows up in the fine print). I've already lost my note from this morning, but yeah, I checked and the edits you've made since then add up perfectly. Serves you right for being prolific. :) Franamax (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Couldn't find any glitches this time. Worked a treat :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

sorting
The sorted by Quality and Rating isnt working. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work by your hidden numerics method, that's for sure, I skipped that step. It should be working by alpha sort. That is unsatisfactory though. I'm trying to reduce page length ATM, but for the article-only sorts - hmm, let's have a look then... :) Franamax (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrap each row into a template invocation. Then we can all play with the template. ;-)
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 01:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're only saying that because Brion quit. :) I'm pretty sure these pages would blast the pre-processor size limit to infinity. Maybe for the article-only's. It would beat playing with the hard-coding, that's for sure. I'm just glad I'm not running Charles Matthews 130,000+ article edits over and over, now that was pesky. Stupid memory limitations...Franamax (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

dyk
Any chance you can easily identify whether an article was a dyk ? John Vandenberg (chat) 01:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You tell me. I already scan the extant talk page to pick off the rating categories. Is there a relatively stable-through-time category I can spot? I thought I already grabbed those, but apparently not. Franamax (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you need to pick it up from the talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is there, and the code is in place now, but I'm thinking back that maybe I discarded the idea in the first place because of the immense difficulty in pinning down who actually got the DYK award. It's bad enough that my own anti-vandal/quality-inspection edits might lead people to think that I participated in a GA, worse yet that they might misconstrue the fact that at some point in the distant past the article got a DYK mention. I looked into the DYK award scheme last year, some people retain their awards, some decline to participate (i.e. don't keep the stars). There is no central registry for DYK's and beyond edit-by-edit inspection of utalks, no way to determine the credit. I did look into determining per-user DYK credits, it's not especially feasible, and unless you can convince me otherwise, I'm not persuaded it would be useful to the by-user/by-article listing. Maybe as a program switch for some users, even then I'm not sure. It's doable, now make me a believer. :) Franamax (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Coren ?
Franamax, you missed one? I've incorporated your chart at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2009 (feel free to edit if numbers change). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind :) I see it now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know why I drew such a fine distinction anyway, and I'll put him in both places - d'uhh, it links to the same sub-page anyway. :) I'd already seen your usage, and yeah, I'm feelin' free to edit or add rows if more people join in, in fact I already need to add Steve Smith. Slowly the number and quality of candidates is creeping up to where I'm starting to think I'll have 7 or 8 who I can vote for with some confidence! Franamax (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, do you have time to run ? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! and located here, however maybe you could ask them to look it over? Rather a small number of edits for someone who started in 2001, though it appears they've become more active lately. Franamax (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blank?
If these data are no longer required or in use, perhaps courtesy blanking the pages (to remove irrelevant links from "what links here") might be in order? – xeno talk 14:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)