User talk:Nn123645/2009/March

Editor review

Hello, you currently have an Editor review request listed on the main page, although it has failed to gain comments, are you still interested in having it open, if so or if not please acknowledge me of that to make a proper archival of the nomination. Thanks.--TRUCO 22:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you want to review me go for it. I just thought I'd leave it up there until someone actually reviewed me or until 6 months passed, whichever came first. —Nn123645 (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That really wasn't my question :) What I mean was do you still want it open? If not, I will archive it [meaning I will close it], since it is over 30 days old (time limit).--TRUCO 01:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't particularly think that more time will really do anything regarding getting someone to respond, so you can do whatever you think is prudent. —Nn123645 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunately had to archive, is that ok?--₮RUCӨ 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine. I'll remove the banner on my user page. —Nn123645 (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Moot

It's not only moot, it just doesn't belong on that particular page. --KP Botany (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for reverting you, I should have asked on your talk first before doing that revert. As I said in my response to you, I don't think the attack was intended to be an attack, lets just leave it at this. —Nn123645 (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Referencing stats

Could you run an analysis on the October 8th database dump? I'd really appreciate it. Ideallhy, I'd like to compare October with 72% of article that did not contain <ref></ref>s by Dr pda in June. See Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 24#Compile statistics on article referencing for more info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm busy this week so I might not get a start on it until the weekend, but I will run one on the articles dump for you. —Nn123645 (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Very cool! Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Any luck? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been having trouble with the sheer size of the database dump and the memory constraints on what I'm working on. Since I don't have 19 GB of free RAM space I can't just load the entire thing into memory as a string. I am using the file functions to do this instead which isn't as convenient but will work. I was wondering if there are any tags you would like me to check for other than the <ref> tag? —Nn123645 (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds difficult. I want to compare today to the past, so the closer you can get to what Dr pda did, the better. He said the results six months ago were:

the average number of citations per paragraph was 2.07 for FA, 2.06 for GA, 0.87 for A class, 0.51 for B, 0.26 for Start, 0.14 for Stub and 0.15 for Unassessed articles. This was out of a total of 2,251,862 articles (disambig pages and obvious lists excluded); 1,625,072 (72%) had no <ref></ref>s

I don't know if this is the best way to look at things, but he probably knows what he's doing. You're doing the heavy lifting, so do whatever seems reasonable to you. If all you did was find that 72% of pages (or whatever) have ref tags, that would still be the best info I've seen on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Do you have any idea where I can get a list of the different assements of the article? The way the color coding userscript does it is download the first section of the talk page using the edit box (something like this http request) and see if there is a template on it with the assessment class. Since part of the database dump version that includes the talk pages from October 8th still isn't done yet, and according to the ETA won't be until the end of May 2009, I can't use that method for getting the assessment class. —Nn123645 (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(redent) I see the problem, although I don't know of a solution. I'll ask Dr pda what he did, that's my first thought. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong about the talk pages dump. That is completed, its the dump of all revisions that isn't done yet. I am unziping that dump now and will use it to get the assessment data. —Nn123645 (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you have this under control now. FWIW I obtained the numbers above from the static html dump rather than the database xml dump. The former is 220 GB (unzipped) of individual HTML files (both article and talk pages) rather than one 20 GB XML file, so it's a bit simpler to analyse. Dr pda (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys rock. I think this will be part of what becomes a very important part of WP analysis. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Any luck? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have code working on a small sample of the dump, but am still having scalability problems when I expand it to the entire dump file. Specifically on the server I am working on the script is getting killed after about an hour of run time. I am implementing a way to have it pick up where it left off but am having problems with that too. I will update you as I figure out why it is getting killed. -- Nn123645 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the quick reply. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to work on this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting the total number of pages now. I have it setup so it will pickup where it left off :). —Nn123645 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just screwed up the results across sessions so I have to start over from the beginning of the dump, I should have the total number of pages in each namespace in the dump in ~6 hours. After I get the total number of pages I can began to compute the total percentage of articles with <ref> tags, ignoring redirects. —Nn123645 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have run two loops of the script (actually more than that but have had various problems with it hanging and not properally storing the file pointer posistion, or getting killed as it was writing the results resulting in dataloss from the run). Currently I have the pages counted up to 4,868,645,191 out of 40,285,896,013 total bytes. —Nn123645 (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. I really appreciate it. I'm very curious about the results. It will be interesting to see how good of a job we're doing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Beat me to editing my comment, the total number of pages in each namespace is avaible here. The reason for counting the pages for all namespaces is that I have to go through the dump line by line anyways, so I figured I might as well get the total number of pages in each namespace while I'm at it. —Nn123645 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you added more to User:Nn123645/Oct 8 2008 Reference Stats. Is it going well? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Over halfway done with the counting of the total pages, if I had to estimate I'd say I'm about 15% done with the total analysis, next up is the reference stats. As a note according to this message they decided to stop the October Dump of all revisions. —Nn123645 (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea it was this much work. Thanks again. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I do have to admit I haven't been running the counting script as often as I should be just because I am manually starting it. I suppose I could put it on a cron job, but I had a problem before with it dying while it was writing the position, causing it to start at the beginning again, so I've been doing it manually to mitigate that problem. If I had about 60 GB of RAM or so I could just use simplexml or a related extension to parse it which would most likely be significantly more efficient than calling preg_match multiple times, though unfortunately I don't have the luxury of ungodly amounts of RAM. —Nn123645 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you're on it. I do think you should upgrade to 60GB of RAM, though. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

lol, I wish. Last time I checked 64 GB of RAM would run you around $4,000 :P. —Nn123645 (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Its over 90% done :D (with the counting part) I'd guesstimate maybe 25-30% done total. —Nn123645 (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'm looking forward to the results. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

After adding all the runs together I got the number of 5,626,972 total pages in the mainspace (which I would imagine include redirects), I guess rather than count the total number of pages in the dump all over again to get the number of pages in the dump which are actual pages I'll count the number of content pages while counting which pages have references, which is the data we are after. According to Special:Statistics there are over 15.8 million pages total on wiki as of the time of this so I guess it makes sense that the mainspace holds a large percentage of the pages on wiki, though I do think its interesting that we have more redirects than we have articles (if you subtract the number of pages in the mainspace I counted in the dump by today's count of the number of articles from the stats page you get 2,886,108, this number is going to be lower than the real data from the dump because of the new redirects/articles that have been created since then). —Nn123645 (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. That sure is a lot of pages other than articles! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it still chugging away? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It is working kind of though lately I haven't been posting the results and have been a bit undisciplined at starting the processes. —Nn123645 (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

They just released a new dump on March 6th data, I guess I'll still complete the analysis on the Oct one and when I am done will rerun it on the new March data. —Nn123645 (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount

Hello Nn123645,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your Freenode-nick (if you have one), your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 01:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sent. —Nn123645 (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

The talkback template doesn't work for templates so you have to create a template of your own user:nn123645/talkback fork. Just post your reply on my user talk page. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 06:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

original messages and replies copied for clarity

From Template talk:Talkback Wikiproject I have tagged this article for speedy deletion under criterion G2 as it appears it was used a sandbox for the Talkback template, though T3 does also apply. --Nn123645 (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Because the Talkback template doesn't work on WikiProjects. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 17:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC) This was fixed today after it was changed in this edit. —Nn123645 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC) So you can use it for ALL talk pages, including WikiProjects and Articles? --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 06:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC) From User talk:Tyw7 At the time I created that page the talkback template was broken. For about a one week period (from March 13th to March 19th) the template did not support any namespace other than Talk and User talk, this was sense resotred to its original functionality. As far as using the templates for Articles and Wikiprojects, that is namespace dependent. Since the template currently supports the Article Talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk namespaces again the template at Template:Wikiproject Talkback is an unneeded fork of the talkback template. Since this discussion is already fragmented enough please place all future replies on this page. --Nn123645 (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC) From Template talk:Talkback Wikiproject Yes, Tyw7, {{Talkback}} does work with all talk pages, e.g. {{Talkback|WP:WikiProject Software}} gives {{Talkback|WP:WikiProject Software}} so this template is essentially redundant, unless you find the slightly different label of the talkback link important. --Amalthea 20:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC) It didn't in the past. I have redirected this to the talkback template page. By the way does the {{Talkback}} template works on articles?--Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 00:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC) It works for article talk pages. — Edokter • Talk • 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth Hasselbeck

{{HELPME|Y cant DOB/names be in wikipedia? Please see Elisabeth Hasselbeck for details. Pls admins help. Thanks.}}

As they said on the talk page due the fact that that page is a Biography of a Living Person possible private details that may disclose information not available to the the general public are not permitted on the page. What both editors were saying on the page is that the source that includes those names are not published in a notable source and thus are not able to be verified. Please note that edit warning is not permitted and can lead to your account getting blocked, disagreements should be resolved via the steps listed in dispute resolution, not via edit warring. If you have any further questions feel free to use {{helpme}} again or seek editor assistance. —Nn123645 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

1)The details arent private. Elisabeth annoounced the info herself, as did ABC & the NFL.
2)Since when is People (magazine) not reputable? But that isnt redpen nor plastic's arguement.1st they just said it shouldnt be there, then they claimed WP:COATRACK.
3)I dont want an edit war so that is y I asked for help. Also, if u r gonna tell me that, TELL THEM bc they revert just as I did. Thanks. 70.108.119.213 (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd reccommend opening a request for comment on the issue to request broder community input. Regarding your third point, you are correct that they should not be engaging in an edit war either, however "they are doing it" or "they did it first" is not a valid excuse for a violation of the three revert rule. —Nn123645 (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

When I put "helpme" & "adminhelp" didnt that ask for community input? I thught I was. If not pls help me 2 do it. 4 the 3rd point, I meant and mean that please warn User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom, User_talk:Plastikspork, User talk:Threeafterthree as well of 3rr. Give them a 3rr warning. 70.108.119.213 (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The {{adminhelp}} and {{helpme}} templates are for requesting help when you have questions about wikipedia. They are not officially part of the dispute resolution process. Requests for comment are used for requesting input from uninvolved outside editors to develop a consensus on the page about what should be done. —Nn123645 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom is stalking me on wikipedia

PLEASE intervene. I'm being wikistalked. redpen is following me and changing all my edits. He had no interest in Matt Hasselbeck, Tim Hasselbeck, Omarosa, nor Girlfriends. S/h is editing them simply bc I am. Is this allowed? Now s/h just gave me a 3rr warning. WTF? HELP ! 70.108.119.213 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Hasselbeck

The IP is putting unsourced defamatory comments into the Tim Hasselbeck article. Removing such content is not subject to the 3RR rule. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend opening an WP:ANI thread about it. —Nn123645 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I went to WP:BLP, i guess the same result. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yourbot

Hi, not sure if you know this allready but your bot has been approved for tasks 1 and 2 (50 edit trial). When will you start your trial? No need to use talkback I'm watching this page. --DFS454 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed about the trial. I was rewriting my IRC code right now. I'm not sure exactly when I will run the trial, probably sometime next weekend. —Nn123645 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently writing the diff parser. —Nn123645 (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How's the progress going? --DFS454 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost done with the diff parser. See the request page. —Nn123645 (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi Nn123645 I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NNBot II is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)