Jump to content

User talk:X!/Archives/4/2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Edit-Counter

I solicit you to add an Opt-In to your Edit-Counter. The Data assembled via this tool is obviously beyond what can easily be achieved directly on the public wiki sites. See the Toolserver Privacy Policy for details. Thank you, --Gnu1742 (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but tswiki:Rules#Special_Cases explicitly says that edit counters are allowed, as long as they do not filter by time of day. That said, I will be offering an opt-out for the graphs at some point in the future (before it becomes the main edit counter). (X! · talk)  · @487  ·  10:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not object to the counting like "User:xyz has 17 edits in Article-Namespace and 42 on User-Discussions". I object to the aggregations like "Most edited pages in Namespace z", which is beyond counting. This is the part where profiling begins. --Gnu1742 (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
tswiki explicitly disallows filtering by time of day without consent, "..., because it may lead to conclusions about the user's location or lifestyle.". Understand this as an example. Filtering by other criteria may also lead to conclusions about private circumstances and need consent. This tool should immediately changed, must have opt-in. -- Smial (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess it's either opt-in or removal of those lists at the bottom.... for the Monthly stats and the overall edit distribution seem to be okay. Easier would be to suppress the lists that come after the Logfile stats, I guess. --Guandalug (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that the answer is obvious, but is presume this is the reason why i suddenly don't see the statistics on most edited pages anymore? I have to admit i kind of miss the statistics regarding my UAA, AIAV and SSP reports. :)
On a more important note for comparisons sake, have a look at this site that we list on our WP:EC page. Fill in your username and set it to the last 100.000 edits (Or more, if you have more edits) and look at the results. The person maintaining this site is not related to Wikipedia, offers no opt-in or user check, and seeing he uses public logs, doesn't do anything that someone else cannot do. I understand why we don't want data mining and data-analysis, but i would argue that this particular tool offers more sensitive data then X!'s tool does. Frankly, if we allow full access to this data, does it make sense we demand a certain code of conduct? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I have sent multiple emails asking them to at least remove the hourly edits graph, but I haven't heard anything as of yet. (X! · talk)  · @022  ·  23:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this entire argument is BS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur. Some might also use the phrase, "Load of flaming horse shit" alternatively. Outback the koala (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, I think there should an option to opt-out rather than opt-in. Seriously, why are we letting some troll ruin it for everyone? -FASTILYsock(TALK) 06:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreeing with Fastily here. It would be trivial to go through a user's contributions and figure out which pages they edit most often, maybe not so easy with users who have a higher edit count, but still possible, "The information they provide is available from the public sites, though it would be very hard to come by using the web interface" - toolserver rules. If the hours of the day is an example, as Smial claims, then the most edited pages is pretty far from that example, and should be fine. - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh look, the editor that ruined it up for everyone seems to be a GNU Stallmanite. Colour me surprised and shocked. Don't let them get you down, X! Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC).
That's out of line Lankiveil. I'm not very happy with this situation either. X! why did you remove the month-by-month instead of only the top articles breakdown? Wasn't the complaint about top articles? Gigs (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the email I got from the admins asking me to remove it asked me to remove the month-counts too. (X! · talk)  · @886  ·  20:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Removing month-by-month makes no sense, since it is so very trivial to do manually with very little work. Not that anyone can't do time of day manually, but it's a good deal more work. All this is public data displayed at the most superficial level. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This may be known to everyone in the conversation, but it bears pointing out: the limitations are not beause the data is private or secret in any way. The limitations are only because the toolserver has strict and conservative rules on data aggregation. These rules were written by Wikimedia Germany, which runs the toolserver and is following what they believe to be the necessary interpretation of German privacy law.

The real solution, IMHO, is to use an editcounter unrelated to toolserver; at least one has been pointed out above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

New edit counter

Hello X!
I saw the new edit counter, and it looks good. Just one thing I noticed though, if you have a username that has more than one word, like mine, instead of linking to User:The High Fin Sperm Whale, it goes to User:The+High+Fin+Sperm+Whale, which doesn't exist. Pleases leave a {{talkback}} if possible. Thanks, and a late congrats on your RfB. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I'll have a look at this once I get back from vacation. (X! · talk)  · @601  ·  13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the new layout, what's the benefit of having to click lots of "show" links before one is allowed to see the most edited pages per namespace? Amalthea 22:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
None, then? From what I see in your archive I'm not the only one who sees this as a change for the worse. I can of course modify it for me client-side, but I really don't understand why you would prefer having it that way in the first place. I don't think it was cluttered, and it didn't push any other important content outside the viewport either (except if you mainly browse per iPhone or something). Amalthea 14:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you watching your talk page? Amalthea 11:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The benefit is that the page is shorter, and it is easier to navigate. (X! · talk)  · @601  ·  13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably depends on the use case. Not sure how you use it, I tend to visit your counter when I want to evaluate a user for RfA. I am then always looking for an overview of a candidate in all namespaces, and first thing I did was to click on 20 "show" links. As indicated I "fixed" that for me with some client-side CSS, but don't think I'm the only one who has that problem. A quick and good compromise is I think if you add a "Show all" link at the top.
Thanks for getting back (and sorry for being a PITA :), it's just that I saw you editing and was surprised that you ignored your talk page), Amalthea 13:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you again, but I found another problem. With the Top namespace edits tool, if you are looking at all the edits in the Wikipedia: namespace, if you click on a link, instead of linking to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, it links to Administrator intervention against vandalism (in the article namespace, which doesn't exist). I do like the rest new edit counter though, especially the collapsible tables. Regards, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Counter

I saw the new edit counter, and it stinks. The colors are hideous and out of realm, and the background color makes my eyes twitch on and off. I would highly appreciate you to continue with the old edit counter. --White Trillium (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. (X! · talk)  · @601  ·  13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How

Hi, after you changed the edit counter to the new look, I cant see the number of pages I patrol any more, how can I monitor that??? thank you for the great work MaenK.A.Talk 14:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly the same comment I was about to have. We all owe you a huge debt for having the counter up as long as you have, but the page patrols and move counters are really integral. Anyway we could help or pressure would be useful to know. Shadowjams (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
One of the objectives about the rewrite is to make the code portable - meaning that it is easy to create a similar tool that counts log actions. As a result, when I have a chance, I will make the log counter. (X! · talk)  · @601  ·  13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Data files in edit counter

Hi X!, I miss in the new (german) edit counter the number of uploaded data files. --Geisler Martin (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the objectives about the rewrite is to make the code portable - meaning that it is easy to create a similar tool that counts log actions. As a result, when I have a chance, I will make the log counter. (X! · talk)  · @601  ·  13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit counter

The opt-in feature not only suppressed generation of the Month Count graphs, but also suppressed generation of the Top edited articles lists. Since the latter are extremely useful for examining the activities of disruptive editors, can they be restored to the Edit counter without disturbing the powers that be.

Thanks for such a useful tool. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the Top Edited graphs were actually the main feature that were to be included in the opt-out. The month counts were a side request. (X! · talk)  · @601  ·  13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Element books bot

Any update on this?Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing so far. I'll have a look at this once I get back from vacation. (X! · talk)  · @601  ·  13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

X Edit Counter

Hi, X!

Your X Edit Counter is not decoding the tooltips properly, when you hover the month graph bars. The accentuated characters appear as 2 different characters (i.e. A§). Best, Malafaya (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I'll have a look at this once I get back from vacation. (X! · talk)  · @601  ·  13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 Fixed (X! · talk)  · @139  ·  02:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

SoxBot at WP:UAA

I may have missed something, but as far as I know, cannibal is not really tied to rape, other than in bad horror movies. :) Maybe a copy/paste error when formatting this? Not a big deal, just an FYI. Keep up the positive contributions! Avicennasis @ 04:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I'll have a look at this once I get back from vacation. (X! · talk)  · @601  ·  13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Counter (of course) and patrol edits

I know you're probably tired of hearing about the counter at this point... sorry for that. Notwithstanding the nonsense above, I've noticed that page patrols have vanished as well. Is this related to the same concerns? I'd find that surprising since they're raw counts. I found them very helpful, especially at RfA. If you can, please let me know if that's an intentional change made for the same reasons as above. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the objectives about the rewrite is to make the code portable - meaning that it is easy to create a similar tool that counts log actions. As a result, when I have a chance, I will make the log counter. (X! · talk)  · @601  ·  13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Editcounter

I have noticed a encoding error with the German translation of your editcounter at the toolserver. While the umlauts at the page itself are encoded correctly, the ones in the popups of the monthly stats are incorrect (see [1]).

Best Wishes --Steef 389 22:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I'll have a look at this once I get back from vacation. (X! · talk)  · @601  ·  13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot reports of HTTP checking for username task

When the name watching task sees user names which match strings/patterns tagged with the HTTP_CHECK, it's supposed to try to contact the site in question with a standard HTTP request, and report the result in its report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot. However, it appears not to have done it in this edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I'll have a look at this once I get back from vacation. (X! · talk)  · @601  ·  13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

MPUploadBot

I notice that File:Machine gun corps Gaza line WWIb edit2.jpg only shows the featured article banners, and not file information. The file information does seem to be in the upload summary for the file. Do you think there is anything you can to do improve that ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I'll have a look at this once I get back from vacation. (X! · talk)  · @601  ·  13:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I have since added the information manually btw. Have fun on your vacation ! —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
A small prod on this one. BTW, It happens if the page already exits because of local Featured picture templates for instance. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Soxbot clearing of Wikipedia:Introduction

Seems to have stopped. --NeilN talk to me 04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

SoxBot UAA problem

It appears SoxBot is reporting usernames with WAIT_TILL_EDIT before they edit. For example, this edit reported Marketingformovies (talk · contribs) which has not edited. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 12:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

swatch internet time

The use of swatch internet time in your sig is really lame. I wish you would use normal timestamps. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Stuck Bot?

Adminstats has not been updated for months (my last update was 9th Jan). Has the bot died?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the photo. I already apologised to the other person. I've deleted everything I've done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compliant Username (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki userpage

Hi Soxred93,

I have edited your MediaWiki userpage, in order to correct the French part which contained some errors.

Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiple input for the simple edit counter

I can't use the Wikipedia API to get the edit count for an IP address. I see that you have various tools on toolserver.org and I wanted to ask you if you could modify it (or create another tool) to accept multiple IP addresses and user names and output the edit count in a simple format.

I understand that you're busy, but that would be really helpful for me. I'm working on PAN - Wikipedia vandalism detection task and getting the edit counts for IP addresses is important. 79.112.19.31 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:X!/Archives/4/2010&oldid=1140162905"