User talk:X!/Archives/9/2010

Request of information about your tool "RfA vote calculator"
If I'm correct, you have created this tool http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rfap/

If this is so,
 * congrats! This is very interesting! ;)
 * I'm interested in testing some hypos about who voted what about whom in Wikipedia elections. I've seen you tend to share your code as free software. Is the code for "RfA vote calculator" available as well? I'm interested in checking how did you get this info and if I can reuse your code or I have to write a parser from scratch. phauly (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, the source for my tools is usually available, and I don't know why this one isn't. I've put it at http://code.google.com/p/soxred93tools/source/browse/trunk/web/rfap/ . Basically, it gets all contributions by the user to Wikipedia:Requests for (admin|bureaucrat)ship/, analyzes each RfA with the RFA library, which is licenced under the GPL by Tangotango, and counts which ones it supported, which ones it opposed, and so on and so forth. ( X! ·  talk )  · @612  · 13:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Going to play with your code now! ;) phauly (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the code! The function I would need is the analyze($rawwikitext). Before I try to adapt it and run it, I was wondering if you could be so kind to maybe export the data you seem to store in the "rfap" table (if I read your code correctly) in your db as plain text. That would save me lots of hours writing the code for parsing this info out of the dump. Thanks! phauly (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage is in a category
Your userpage User:X!/Changing username has a category, and so appears in Category:Wikipedia noticeboards. As the guideline on userpages describes, this is undesired. It is suggested that you edit the userpage to prevent this showing. It can be done by adding a colon (:) before the word Category, like this:  Category: Wikipedia noticeboards . Other categories might be involved too. -DePiep (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup/History/2010
Could you please give Soxbot a quick poke? It's not updated WikiCup/History/2010 in a little while for some reason, and some users are getting concerned. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes what is up?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I protected the page for a few hours a couple of days ago, if that's anything to do with anything. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Image tagging
When adding Deletable image-caption this should be added in the caption. In infoboxes, images and captions use a different parameter, adding it in the image paramater is useless as it doesn't show, like. Also this template should be dated.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot also gets confused regarding brackets (diff) Racklever (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

??? rhen how do you help me ? if i cant talk to you and help me ?
i eidted Andre Birleanu page and it said there we're no links added but i did put like 50 from all over the world.. im new to wikipedia, i mean really new.. i dont know what im doing... and i need explanation or help.. im sorry.. another was to wikifi the page ?! please im sorry, explain.. my article is true and has plenty of refrences.. also i want it to be un edited by others.. do i pay for this feature?? is so were ?? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catharina jaqueira (talk • contribs) 00:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Why won't you respond?
I raised several specific points about why I thought your closing rationale was flawed. You have not responded to any of them. You are a beaurocrat. You are obligated to discuss your actions as a beaurocrat. You cannot simply ignore valid criticism because you don't like it. Why are you manually archiving my comments when you let a bot handle that for you under normal circumstances. Please discuss instead of deleting. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He is not obliged to do anything. He has explained the decision at length, and feels it has run its course. My advice is that you respect his wishes and leave him alone. If however you can't, and you think he is guilty of misconduct, you should probably raise it at the bureaucrats noticeboard. --WFC-- 21:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While I realize that ArbCom does not set precedent, per se, the following principle has been found in several cases and remains more or less consistent: "Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions."  Now, it's about admins not beaurocrats, but the princple remains the same.  All I want is to have a discussion about the rationale that X! used.  I haven't been particularly hostile (maybe a little bit after being ignored/dismissed, but certainly mostly cordial).  I've tried to present my concerns in a clear and rational manner.  Yet I keep getting the brush off.  I really don't understand it.  -208.97.245.131 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I take your word that you've been civil, but it's besides the point. He has clearly indicated that he does not feel this is going anywhere, and has nothing more to say. That is his right as a volunteer, and I don't think he could have made his position clearer. If you feel that the matter needs further discussion, you should seek opinions at an alternative venue, giving X! the choice of whether or not he personally contributes. --WFC-- 22:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If we had gone around in circle on the matter, I'd understand that. But the fact is that he's never responded to me at all, except to say that he doesn't want to talk about it.  -208.97.245.131 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He's perfectly entitled to do that, and you are perfectly entitled to take it elsewhere; but the bottom line is that there are mechanisms here for dispute resolution, and if an editor will not respond, you are at liberty to take it elsewhere. But you can't force an editor to respond, and particularly not so when you attempt to do so on his own Talk page. I have no horse in this race, but it does appear that you are attempting to flog a dead equine quadruped. You may not be happy, but who is? Take note of WP:DE and move on, please. Rodhull  andemu  23:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From WP:BN - "This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should raise the matter with them on their talkpage. Uncivil posts and those involving personal attacks are ignoble and subject to removal." This is what I've tried to do here.  And of course, a conduct RFC would require multiple people, not just me.  But I can see that, as usual, it's time to circle the wagons against the IP, so I guess that's as far as I can go.  But for the record, I think it's pretty shameful how this matter has been handled.  When an editor comes with a calm, cordial, well reasoned concern, it should be responded to in kind.  Not dismissed and hidden.  -208.97.245.131 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you cannot find one person from our 13,000,000 users willing to certify an RFC, surely that's as clear an indication as any that now is the time to move on? I didn't like it either, but such is life. --WFC-- 16:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I made it clear, in my last post there, that I am moving on because I can see that trying to have a reasonable discussion is apparently considered disruptive editing. And I really think that much of this is due to my editing from an IP.  If I had dusted off my old admin account, I guarantee this would have gone very differently.  And that's sad.  -208.97.245.131 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that me, as well as many other admins, would treat a sticking IP the same as a sticking admin. ( X! ·  talk )  · @828  · 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From WP:STICK "There comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end." Here, there are been no debate or discussion at all.  I'll go away, but please don't pretend like you engaged me in meaningful discussion.  -208.97.245.131 (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not moving on. You're becoming tedious, and pushing this beyond the limits of tolerance. If you are/were an Admin, you'd have at least warned this IP by now. My last word: Editor doesn't want to discuss it and he can't be forced to do so. You've been advised to take it elsewhere. Drop the stick and move on, please, or enjoy an enforced holiday from editing here. Rodhull andemu  22:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as people say something to me (as you have done), I will reply. I'm not sure how that's hounding.  Block me if you like, but it will be totally unjustified.  I consider the matter of getting X! to talk to me about his rationale to be over.  But I don't see how responding to things that people address directly to me is disruptive in any way.  -208.97.245.131 (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'll say nothing. You'd be advised to take the same counsel. X! has made his position clear; learn to live with it or take it elsewhere. Rodhull  andemu  23:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2
Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7, you may be interested in Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SoxBot error
Thought you'd want to know: When SoxBot posted this, the user had no contributions and no deleted contributions, yet the bot claims that it waited until the user edited. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SoxBot and Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention
Can this bot please be configured so it only reports usernames from registered accounts that have made at least one edit, to Usernames for administrator attention, and not report accounts that have made zero edits? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a variable WAIT_TILL_EDIT that can be placed on a keyword which you want to have the bot hold off on instead of reporting immediately. But there would probably be some who'd object to having all of the names delayed.   —  Soap  —  00:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit counter
As I recall, the edit counter was changed over a privacy issue.

Then users had the option to opt back in with EditCounterOptIn.js.

I have yet to see another user opt in, and it's been months.

So, since people are no longer able to get a quick overview of an editor's interests and expertise simply by looking here,

aren't people now getting an overview by reading talk pages?

Isn't this defeating the purpose of any "privacy" consideration?

The original complaint in fact had merit?

Varlaam (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunaly, the issue is long, long gone. Complain to the Toolserver admins if you want, but they will say the same thing they've said for the past however many months it's been. ( X! ·  talk )  · @160  · 02:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (Nice app, by the way.)
 * Just so I'm clear, you did the actual coding, correct?
 * Who might some Toolserver admins be?
 * Another point:
 * There is now a restriction on detailed breakdowns for users in excess of 45,000 edits.
 * (If you were to include my foreign language edits, I'm gettin' there.)
 * This was in order to "conserve resources".
 * But since no one actually ever uses this feature now (except me), isn't it perfectly safe to rescind that restriction?
 * Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I use the edit counter regularly. Almost exclusively to check my own stats. If that restriction can't be rescinded, I'd at least recommend a slight change to the wording at the bottom of the page from "Sorry, but in order to consume my fair share of toolserver resources" to "Sorry, but in order to consume only my fair share of toolserver resources". But that's just me being pedantic. Useight (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No one's using it? It's had over a million hits since I implemented it. The hit count has been steady since long before I implemented the counter. Please do not make wild assumptions like that with nothing to back it up with. What more, it is more than just consuming my fair share, it is also to provide a faster response time. Parsing dozens of thousands of edits takes a LONG time in PHP. ( X! ·  talk )  · @855  · 19:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about the Edit Counter tool
Hi... A quick question, if I may: how does the tool count edits made to a page in one space that has then been moved to another? For example, if an article is developed in user space and then moved to article space, will your edit counter tool count those edits as edits to user space or article space after the move has occurred? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hazard a guess that it would be counted to the new namespace. – xeno talk 18:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does count. It is also shown multiple times in Special:Contributions, so my edit counter counts every single one, just like Special:Contributions. ( X! ·  talk )  · @854  · 19:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To the final namespace though, right? – xeno talk 19:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Misunderstood I did not. :) Yes, it does count for both namespaces. ( X! ·  talk )  · @865  · 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The move log will have an entry for both namespaces, but the actual edits get attributed to the new namespace, don't they? (These edits were originally to userspace) – xeno talk 19:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bug report
Hello! I've just noticed that this tool, which is operated, as I understand, by you, shows up a minor shortcoming when applied in projects with a hyphen in the domain name (be-x-old etc.): it has no trouble with generating a list of entries, however, an attempt to open one of them fails since it automatically turns the hyphens into underscores, entailing opening a non-existent wiki page. Hopefully, it won't be too hard to fix it? Thanks in advance.--Microcell (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't want to bother you with this stuff - just leave a note if it's doable. Of course, if it requires lots of time or work, I will not insist.--Microcell (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:March 5 1895 San Francisco Call newspaper.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup and valued pictures
Hey, I know you're not too active right now, but I left a bug report a week or so ago as I was directed to in the header on this page- any chance of a fix? J Milburn (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Blamer discussion?– and quote on your user page has typo
I too am here to build this giant wiki. But that doesnt mean we cant mean make friends along the way. —Gears of War

or sic it?

Yes, and is Article Blamer discussion available? Or, simply, can I search heading and html comment text. I ask because I get a repeated Bad request and a 504 for a section heading query shortly after a successful query on another page.

Like your robin. Nice to meet you,  Trev M ~  21:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)et seq.

Signpost
Hi, we are currently running a series in the Signpost about various tools (first installment) and are thinking about featuring your "Article revision statistics" (and maybe "Article Blamer") in the upcoming issue. Would like to review the draft and perhaps make comments or suggestions on what to add to the description? (Is "Article Blamer" fully functional yet? A faster alternative to "WikiBlame" woudl be awesome.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
How did you get to display your Swatch Internet Time in your signature like that? Regards, — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne?  • 03:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User:X!/sig ( X! ·  talk )  · @171  · 03:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh ok thanks! — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne?  • 04:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to bother you but I was wondering if you could tell how to generate the time, I asked others for help but it seems that you're the only one who could really tell me how to do it, the values you've used are beyond my comprehension and you're very good at manipulating the code it seems. I understand you're busy so I won't bother you. Regards — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  •  5:54pm  • 07:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. I used the template from the SIT article. It used to have a clock at the top, but it appears to be gone now. ( X! ·  talk )  · @551  · 12:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I removed . There is a section here and a big discussion here on the removal of these. However, the code is still around. Hope this helps.  Set Sail For The Seven Seas   243° 32' 30" NET   16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both, I should have read the article >.< — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  •  4:42pm  • 06:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

MPUploadBot and restoration of old Main Page file description
Hi, I'm a bit confused about what the bot did at File:If cover May 1955.jpg. From what, after deleting the file after it was off the Main Page, it then restored the old page description, which had been moved to Commons back in April and already appeared. I think the bot may have a problem with recognizing when old revisions don't need to be restored. Can you take a look? Thanks, BanyanTree 02:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It does have a problem. Unfortunately, I have yet to come up with a sure-fire way to detect when to restore and when not to restore. With FPs and POTDs, the demand is greater for images to have notices, with a few extra resotred images, rather than less resotred images and a few images with missing tags. ( X! ·  talk )  · @184  · 03:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup again
The bot is counting featured pictures as featured sounds- any chance of a fix? J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, quick question
Would it be possible for you to make a remake of Tangotango's milestone tool? It'd be much appreciated if possible since Tangotango hasn't edited for awhile, he hasn't responded to my email or talk page messages for a while now so I was wondering if you could create a remake of the original. Regards, — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  •  10:29pm  • 12:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

EditCounter Helper
Hey X!. Just letting you know that I wrote something to help with your edit count tool. I've found it gets a bit sluggish with users with a lot of edits, so I made a way to streamline it. It also shifts some of the memory and processing load off of the webserver. Go to http://toolserver.org/~tim1357/cgi-bin/ec.py?user=X!&db=enwiki_p to get an example. It returns a json object with the all the namespace counts for each month of activity for a user. Leave a message on my talk page if you have questions. Tim 1357  <sup style="font-family:Times new roman; font-size:small;">talk  05:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if it makes it easier: You can have the output in php serialize format by appending  to the request url.  Tim  1357  <sup style="font-family:Times new roman; font-size:small;">talk  15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how it works? ( X! ·  talk )  · @944  · 21:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey USS Monocacy
why did you maliciously delete said photo? It was a US gov source and pre 1923, thus public domain. the photo should stay, and if anything open a debate on talk page. Not unilateral deletion by one overzealous and trumped up little "editor". Write content, not pull down people's work.
 * It would help if you (1) don't interpose comments in the middle of other posts; it makes them hard to follow, (2) provide a link at least to the relevant article, (3) refrain from personal attacks, and (4) sign your posts using ~ . Otherwise, fine.

Rodhull andemu  02:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)