![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello, something easy first: For the German edit counter interface, it ought to be "Beitragszähler" instead of "Beitragszählera", and "Am meisten bearbeitete Seiten" instead of "Am meisten bearbeitete Artikel".
Ok, so your edit counter appears to check for existing "/Editcounter" user subpages and reads those as opt-in independent of content. But if you look at, de:user:emkaer/Editcounter, eg, according to User:Interiot/EditCountOptIn, that user chose to not show his monthly edit count (Month-Graph:no) as well as his most edited pages (Usercontributions:no), but your tool shows his full data anyway. [1] It would need to independently check the pages for "Month-Graph:yes" and "Usercontributions:yes"; if one's missing, at least that corresponding part shouldn't be visible.
Also, your edit summary counter in effect shows a monthly mainspace edit count as well (even showing only relative data would still count as profiling monthly activity, imo) so, just like the edit counter, it should check for "/EditCounterOptIn.js" or "Month-Graph:yes" (in "/Editcounter"). Same goes for the top namespace edits tool (with "Usercontributions:yes"), actually.
Oh yeah, one more thing. I don't know if you've already thought of this, but the latest editor of "/Editcounter" has to be the page owner.-- 141.84.69.20 ( talk) 23:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. For some reason SoxBot treats the page like a Sandbox and removes unconstructive edits thereby leaving the following at the end of the page:
<!-- Feel free to change the text below this line. No profanity, please. -->
My concern is that this gives new editors the impression that it is okay to carry out newbie experiments on the page. I would suggest that the page be semi-protected and SoxBot be relieved of cleaning up the page regularly. Thank you. -- Forty two Thanks for all the fish! 14:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you get the bot to start adding the safesubst prefix? [2] Would make it a lot easier to enter the final tally. – xeno talk 14:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
What should I start doing, as a clerk trainee? NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 18:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
On your edit counter, spaces in user names are incorrectly turned into plus signs in the link to the Wikipedia user page — see [3] for example. — Stephen Morley ( talk) 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
$content->assign( "usernameurl", urlencode($cnt->getName()) );
in index.php and replace the urlencode
function with the rawurlencode
function. —
Stephen Morley (
talk)
06:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This edit, [4], does add the deletable image caption but did not add it so that editors can see them, which is the point of the caption. Most infoboxes have a caption field and this is where the caption should be added. I have moved the deletable image caption into the infobox caption field for this article. Aspects ( talk) 05:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Did you notice my post : Edit count translation ? Thanks to taking care of it. Arno Lagrange ✉ 11:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Do you do SPI clerk training? I requested to be a trainee clerk awhile ago but was told by Tim Song to get active in projects. I've done it but he won't be regularly online now. He has asked me to ask another active clerk. Can you please take me in? Bejinhan talks 12:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
What was the reason for this edit, clearing the article Summerland (novel) and calling it the sandbox?-- ShelfSkewed Talk 17:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like something like it happened again here. -- Nigelj ( talk) 21:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It appears that the edits per user are always less than one. It looks like you got the numbers on the wrong sides of the divider. 117Avenue ( talk) 07:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?name=Soap just goes to an emptified version of the article history page. Is it a bug or another example of a tool that was deemed to be too invasive of privacy? If so, can I opt in again? — Soap — 11:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Something doesn't seem right about SoxBot. mechamind 9 0 04:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I don't really know where I could repport it, sorry if I'm wrong. I could be really great if this tool include the count of sysops actions... Otourly ( talk) 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to request a slight change to Soxbot's programming regarding the {{ uncat}} template. An article is supposed to be tagged as uncategorized if it doesn't have any permanent content categories on it, even if it is in a stub category that's being artificially applied by a stub template — because the stub category is meant to be temporary and maintenance-oriented and removed from the article once it's been improved beyond stub length, it doesn't count as a true subject category for the purposes of categorization. However, the bot untagged Clarence Smedley Thomas a few days ago. Could you please reprogram the bot to exclude stub categories when it's evaluating whether a tagged article is categorized or not? Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 22:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Good day, I note you are away till the 6th of August but I thought I would drop you a message anyway, as this request may still be pending. User talk:Itsbydesign has requested unblock, a user you blocked as a sockpuppet. The relevant investigation is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElPilotoDi/Archive. As they have asked for the rationale for the block to be given in more detail, I thought I would drop you this note. Regards, -- Taelus ( Talk) 09:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This shows I have made one edit with AWB, yet I have never used AWB. STiki also appears to have disappeared. Could you fix these? Thanks. ~ NSD ( ✉ • ✐) 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I had been looking up my stats using your script on ToolServer. I got the (not so) neat idea of trying to look up ClueBot's stats to satisfy my curiousity (via: ~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=ClueBot&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia), which seems to have caused the script to crash. I am hoping my curiosity simply took out that script instance and not the bot/server itself for any period of time (checked my stats via the script and all seems well), so, just wanted to offer my apologies if my curiosity caused a problem. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 15:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Could it be, at least, August 17 2012 ? I was too addicted to this thing... nice to have it down. Like selling an old car... and enjoying just walking.
Cheers, East of Borschov 17:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody remove the CSD tags from the articles where Digimon images are located, please? I've added the appropriate non-free copyright tags to them, but I don't know if SoxBot removes them. mechamind 9 0 18:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_August_14#File:Edit_counter_disabled_time_for_reflection.png Thank you! Kipzock ( talk) 21:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Currently the bot is tagging the image name, which doesn't make the FFD notice display, rather than the caption field. Compare this Soxbot edit with this one fixing it. postdlf ( talk) 14:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
This suspension of service makes it very difficult to assess applications for AWB since {{ AWBUser}} links to your toolserver page. Any idea what we tell appplicants who could normally expect a maximum 48-hour service level? Cheers. Rodhull andemu 18:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi X!
Thanks for the edit counter. It is very useful. Tools like this are a big part of what makes wikipedia great, and I miss the tool now that it's temporarily offline.
However, I agree with the stance that you've taken over editcountitis in RFAs. It's disappointing to see that people are witholding votes on candidates because the counter is unavailable (not just withholding, but going to the effort of posting a non-vote on the RFA to complain that they're unable to form a judgement), and I think that underlines your point.
Just a little moral support from a random wikipedian :-)
bobrayner (
talk)
11:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Copy edit for pronouns? She's a she, not a he. (Nice to see a lengthy rationale, by the way.) Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You mentioned that it might be possible to craft a userright that permitted banning accounts no more than 5 days old. Would it be possible as well to create a userright that let one see only deleted pages that had been initially created by those users? Or only deleted pages containing edits by those users? - Dank ( push to talk) 11:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Nice close on GorillaWarfare. I knew it was going to be close (despite the assumption of several that it would fail), and you could have taken the easy way out, but I think you made the right call.
But enough praise, I came to make a different point. It has become wiki-lore that modified !votes - "strong" or "weak" may be signals to other !voters, or even notes to oneself, but are ignore by 'crats. However, I note you explicitly considered them in your close statement. Nor long ago, someone was talking about the concept of ignoring the modifiers and I thought about it a little. I came to a conclusion that may be consistent with your thinking, or it may not. I concluded that a modifier of "weak" whether support or Oppose, could be accepted prima facie, but not "strong". My thinking is that if someone decides to support or oppose, but hasn't done much homework, or doesn't feel what they've noticed is particularly compelling, we can take them at their word. In contrast, if they want to state that their Support or Opposition is strong, assertion isn't enough, provide some evidence. The 'crat can then examine the evidence, and conclude that it does deserve extra weight, but you can't get extra weight for a position by just asserting it. (The minor clarification is that a "weak" oppose means you cab discount it, but you are not obliged to. If the !vote says Weak Oppose because of the multiple copyright violations and the recent block for vandalism, you don't have to accept that as a weak oppose.)-- SPhilbrick T 12:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I strongly dislike your closing rationale here. I don't really care about the result - I don't know this editor, but your explanation leaves a lot to be desired.
First: "Additionally, there were a large amount of editors in the support party that stated that the opposes were unconvincing. Thus, they hold less weight, as there is a lack of consensus surrounding the ideas behind them." This is ridiculous. They hold less wait because people who disagreed said they were unconvincing? Everybody who voted support found them unconvincing. And everybody who voted oppose found the support arguments unconvincing. Anybody who found the arguemnts convincing voted with those arguments. Saying that opposing arguments are unconvining isn't an valid counter-argument. It's like saying that content you don't like is unencyclopedic. It doesn't mean anything.
Second: "To quote WJBScribe, "there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator."" What are you trying to say here? That opposes based on lack of content creation are not valid? I really don't think that's up for you to decide. It's true that not everybody thinks that it's important. But others do, and it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose. For you to just discount it because not everybody agrees, I think is in appropriate, and not your role as a Beaurocrat. Related - your objection to people opposing because of large amounts of automated edits. Why do you get to decide whether or not that's valid, too. You're supposed to be judging consensus, not deciding what rationales are valid and which are not.
The way you pick and choose which argument are valid and which are not, based on what appear to be your own personal biases, I find quite objectionable. It seems that you don't think that content creation is important. That's fine, but I don't think that you should be using that to discount the opposition of those who do. It's not a "frivolous" reason to object.
Oh, and one more thing - the fact that an argument is challeneged does not invalidate the argument. Opposes almost always get more challenges than supports. What's to challenge if someone says, I like their contributions, etc. etc. You're just going to encourage baseless badgering with this sort of rationale.
Thanks for your time. - 208.97.245.131 ( talk) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
From edit summary deleting section: "Acknowledged. Please note that this is a moot case now. The RfA is closed (a month ago, at that), and I gave a detailed rationale. I evaluated it fairly and impartially. I'm sorry it didn't turn out in your favor."
X! with the disabling of the edit counters, you have taken away a very valuable tool in the RfA assessment process. I understand your point, but please return things to normal ASAP. Thanks-- Hokeman ( talk) 03:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Editcountitis is a perennial problem and I can understand your concern. However, your edit counters are powerful analytical tools. I find them indispensable for assessing participants' motivations in mediations. Despite editcountitis, the serious work of Wikipedia continues. We won't change human nature. But on the bright side amassing a sizeable edit count is what motivates many to keep at it. Sunray ( talk) 07:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what led up to your suspending the edit counter, but I applaud your seeking to get people to stop obsessing about edit numbers. I'm very disappointed to see more tahn one person suggesting that those who have reached a certain number of edits should automatically be made admins. Especially since I just can't understand the practice of making 20 tiny edits to an article when one thorough go-through will do. Isn't that what the preview button is for? And to me, changes are frequently related - I fix or tweak one thing, then it leads me to see another thing or I need to change another thing as a result . . . I've been told I would see it differently if I were a programmer, but it adds to my skepticism about pronouncements based on number of edits. . . . However, I eagerly await the 17th and the return of your counter because I wanted to check how far my percentage of article edits vs. everything else had sunk this month, and here I am further reducing it :-) Yngvadottir ( talk) 15:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me for playing devil's advocate but how is it a disruption to Wikipedia for a person to disable (what, in my understanding, is) a third-party tool separate from Wikipedia which they created? Is it his fault that so many people came to rely upon it that it felt like a limb was torn from them, much to the exact opposite of what X! intended (an assumption I make based upon recent actions)? There are other tools out there, should one happen to be so obsessed with edit counts (though none provide the intricacies of X!'s counter such as breaking down edits in a pie graph and numerical chart by namespace). So you'll have to forgive me, but I fail to see the logic in that argument as no essential function of Wikipedia has been broken. Nothing stops someone from heading over to
Special:Contributions,
Special:Log, or
Special:ListUsers; and if a user wishes to check their own edit count:
Special:Preferences. On another note, editcountis has plagued Wikipedia RfA's as of late and I've watched completely valid users fail RfA's because they did not have 9 x 10^11 or higher total edits (blatant overstatement, but you get the point). It makes me wonder what kind of chance I would stand, opting for my substantive edits rather than 500 reverts a day. That said, I fully support your choice to suspend usage of it for a week. Now if
Pilif12p does not mind, I am going to adopt his reaction to the obsession with edit counts.
Facepalm
ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ②
talk
22:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I am curious to see how many edits of mine have been to various categories like Talk, article, wikipedia etc. Please re-enable your excellent edit counter tool. Thanks... Modernist ( talk) 21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me. It was a rather weak oppose. I stand by it, but I recognize that community consensus doesn't agree with me. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully do not agree with your close. That rationales were challenged was a reason to discount them? Well, great, you'll encourage people on both sides of the divide to challenge the other. The supports found the opposes unconvincing? Hardly surprising, if they found them convincing, they would have opposed. I just have the feeling, reading your rationale, that the outcome of promotion was the option you felt more comfortable with, and you had a little bit of confirmation bias. This one is not a big deal. But you may have let loose an awfully big badger, only time will tell. All the best, though.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
In such a close case, I think it would have been controversial either way. Obviously, the fact that I supported the candidate makes me biased, so I won't render judgement as to whether you reached the right decision. However, I think it was good of you to give a detailed rationale where you went through the points for and against promotion, and that you balanced them in a fair manner. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I've considered whether to comment here for several days now, but I remain of the opinion that some parts of your closing comments were misguided. It seems to me unreasonable to dismiss the strongly held views of those editors who feel that admins should have some experience of building the encyclopedia rather than policing it. I am particularly worried by the possible future precedent of your quoting WJBScribe, "there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator." -- of course there isn't a consensus, otherwise such candidates would receive almost unanimous opposition and would never fall into the discretionary zone! As countless discussions on the RfA talkpage attest, there's no consensus whatsoever as to what characteristics are necessary in an administrator candidate. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Excellent User Page Award |
I looked at your user page and i was very impressed. Inka 888 ( talk) 01:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC) |
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi X!, I was wondering if you could look at the Guidelines for the Pending Changes Trial Vote commenting since Mkativerata expressed concerns over it. It's here: Wikipedia:Pending Changes/Vote comment. Thanks!
Also
![]() |
X! has been made a member of the
Order of the Mop, Kind regards and happy editing, |
Thanks for the hard you put in your tools! Ғяіᴅaз'§Đоом | Spare your time? 02:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are going to unindent one of his votes, shouldn't you unindent them all? Personally I don't think that we, as bureaucrats, should involve ourselves in the ongoing edit war over the votes (it should be taken up at WT:RFA) - but there is something to be said for consistency in execution (lest it be seen as bureaucratic favourtism to the candidates where the votes remain indented). Are you aware of the ANI thread concerning this user? – xeno talk 12:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hiya, your bot reported "Lofanlongschlong", I responded at WP:UAA. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Either the bot has a bizarre sense of humor, or it's malfunctioning. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I would watch this conversation. It borders on incivility. Thanks-- intelati 20:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
intelati has given you a
Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!
Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{ subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Even though the user who added them has been warned, they continue to put scans from their DVD boxes up. I do not know how to revert them without banjaxing the page completely. Would it be possible for you to check on this? They have also done this in other shows, despite repeated warnings. Trista (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 ( talk) 02:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi X! Your bot probably shouldn't follow redirects when cleaning the sandbox [5] [6]. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Really like your Article Blamer and Edit Counter tools! Noticed your Edit Counter tool knows how many deleted edits a user has made. Any way to get to the detail of which edits were deleted? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 03:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, MessageDeliveryBot has been updated to the latest development version of Peachy, and this is a test message to make sure that everything is still working. Feel free to delete it now.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of EdoDodo at 23:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:Soxred93.
Three images were recently tagged for deletion, because they were previously orphans( File:MikeyScars.jpg, File:SVitabile.jpg, File:Capo-1-.jpg). However, since I found articles for these images, they shouldn't be tagged. ---- DanTD ( talk) 02:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring the request to use the bug reporter, just unsure if this is a bug/issue/intentional fix. This fixed my overall editcount, but apparently undeleted all my deleted 'tribs. Any idea why? sonia ♫ 09:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by West.andrew.g ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello, something easy first: For the German edit counter interface, it ought to be "Beitragszähler" instead of "Beitragszählera", and "Am meisten bearbeitete Seiten" instead of "Am meisten bearbeitete Artikel".
Ok, so your edit counter appears to check for existing "/Editcounter" user subpages and reads those as opt-in independent of content. But if you look at, de:user:emkaer/Editcounter, eg, according to User:Interiot/EditCountOptIn, that user chose to not show his monthly edit count (Month-Graph:no) as well as his most edited pages (Usercontributions:no), but your tool shows his full data anyway. [1] It would need to independently check the pages for "Month-Graph:yes" and "Usercontributions:yes"; if one's missing, at least that corresponding part shouldn't be visible.
Also, your edit summary counter in effect shows a monthly mainspace edit count as well (even showing only relative data would still count as profiling monthly activity, imo) so, just like the edit counter, it should check for "/EditCounterOptIn.js" or "Month-Graph:yes" (in "/Editcounter"). Same goes for the top namespace edits tool (with "Usercontributions:yes"), actually.
Oh yeah, one more thing. I don't know if you've already thought of this, but the latest editor of "/Editcounter" has to be the page owner.-- 141.84.69.20 ( talk) 23:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. For some reason SoxBot treats the page like a Sandbox and removes unconstructive edits thereby leaving the following at the end of the page:
<!-- Feel free to change the text below this line. No profanity, please. -->
My concern is that this gives new editors the impression that it is okay to carry out newbie experiments on the page. I would suggest that the page be semi-protected and SoxBot be relieved of cleaning up the page regularly. Thank you. -- Forty two Thanks for all the fish! 14:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you get the bot to start adding the safesubst prefix? [2] Would make it a lot easier to enter the final tally. – xeno talk 14:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
What should I start doing, as a clerk trainee? NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 18:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
On your edit counter, spaces in user names are incorrectly turned into plus signs in the link to the Wikipedia user page — see [3] for example. — Stephen Morley ( talk) 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
$content->assign( "usernameurl", urlencode($cnt->getName()) );
in index.php and replace the urlencode
function with the rawurlencode
function. —
Stephen Morley (
talk)
06:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This edit, [4], does add the deletable image caption but did not add it so that editors can see them, which is the point of the caption. Most infoboxes have a caption field and this is where the caption should be added. I have moved the deletable image caption into the infobox caption field for this article. Aspects ( talk) 05:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Did you notice my post : Edit count translation ? Thanks to taking care of it. Arno Lagrange ✉ 11:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Do you do SPI clerk training? I requested to be a trainee clerk awhile ago but was told by Tim Song to get active in projects. I've done it but he won't be regularly online now. He has asked me to ask another active clerk. Can you please take me in? Bejinhan talks 12:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
What was the reason for this edit, clearing the article Summerland (novel) and calling it the sandbox?-- ShelfSkewed Talk 17:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like something like it happened again here. -- Nigelj ( talk) 21:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It appears that the edits per user are always less than one. It looks like you got the numbers on the wrong sides of the divider. 117Avenue ( talk) 07:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/autoedits/index.php?name=Soap just goes to an emptified version of the article history page. Is it a bug or another example of a tool that was deemed to be too invasive of privacy? If so, can I opt in again? — Soap — 11:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Something doesn't seem right about SoxBot. mechamind 9 0 04:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I don't really know where I could repport it, sorry if I'm wrong. I could be really great if this tool include the count of sysops actions... Otourly ( talk) 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to request a slight change to Soxbot's programming regarding the {{ uncat}} template. An article is supposed to be tagged as uncategorized if it doesn't have any permanent content categories on it, even if it is in a stub category that's being artificially applied by a stub template — because the stub category is meant to be temporary and maintenance-oriented and removed from the article once it's been improved beyond stub length, it doesn't count as a true subject category for the purposes of categorization. However, the bot untagged Clarence Smedley Thomas a few days ago. Could you please reprogram the bot to exclude stub categories when it's evaluating whether a tagged article is categorized or not? Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 22:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Good day, I note you are away till the 6th of August but I thought I would drop you a message anyway, as this request may still be pending. User talk:Itsbydesign has requested unblock, a user you blocked as a sockpuppet. The relevant investigation is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElPilotoDi/Archive. As they have asked for the rationale for the block to be given in more detail, I thought I would drop you this note. Regards, -- Taelus ( Talk) 09:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This shows I have made one edit with AWB, yet I have never used AWB. STiki also appears to have disappeared. Could you fix these? Thanks. ~ NSD ( ✉ • ✐) 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I had been looking up my stats using your script on ToolServer. I got the (not so) neat idea of trying to look up ClueBot's stats to satisfy my curiousity (via: ~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=ClueBot&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia), which seems to have caused the script to crash. I am hoping my curiosity simply took out that script instance and not the bot/server itself for any period of time (checked my stats via the script and all seems well), so, just wanted to offer my apologies if my curiosity caused a problem. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 15:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Could it be, at least, August 17 2012 ? I was too addicted to this thing... nice to have it down. Like selling an old car... and enjoying just walking.
Cheers, East of Borschov 17:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody remove the CSD tags from the articles where Digimon images are located, please? I've added the appropriate non-free copyright tags to them, but I don't know if SoxBot removes them. mechamind 9 0 18:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_August_14#File:Edit_counter_disabled_time_for_reflection.png Thank you! Kipzock ( talk) 21:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Currently the bot is tagging the image name, which doesn't make the FFD notice display, rather than the caption field. Compare this Soxbot edit with this one fixing it. postdlf ( talk) 14:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
This suspension of service makes it very difficult to assess applications for AWB since {{ AWBUser}} links to your toolserver page. Any idea what we tell appplicants who could normally expect a maximum 48-hour service level? Cheers. Rodhull andemu 18:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi X!
Thanks for the edit counter. It is very useful. Tools like this are a big part of what makes wikipedia great, and I miss the tool now that it's temporarily offline.
However, I agree with the stance that you've taken over editcountitis in RFAs. It's disappointing to see that people are witholding votes on candidates because the counter is unavailable (not just withholding, but going to the effort of posting a non-vote on the RFA to complain that they're unable to form a judgement), and I think that underlines your point.
Just a little moral support from a random wikipedian :-)
bobrayner (
talk)
11:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Copy edit for pronouns? She's a she, not a he. (Nice to see a lengthy rationale, by the way.) Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You mentioned that it might be possible to craft a userright that permitted banning accounts no more than 5 days old. Would it be possible as well to create a userright that let one see only deleted pages that had been initially created by those users? Or only deleted pages containing edits by those users? - Dank ( push to talk) 11:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Nice close on GorillaWarfare. I knew it was going to be close (despite the assumption of several that it would fail), and you could have taken the easy way out, but I think you made the right call.
But enough praise, I came to make a different point. It has become wiki-lore that modified !votes - "strong" or "weak" may be signals to other !voters, or even notes to oneself, but are ignore by 'crats. However, I note you explicitly considered them in your close statement. Nor long ago, someone was talking about the concept of ignoring the modifiers and I thought about it a little. I came to a conclusion that may be consistent with your thinking, or it may not. I concluded that a modifier of "weak" whether support or Oppose, could be accepted prima facie, but not "strong". My thinking is that if someone decides to support or oppose, but hasn't done much homework, or doesn't feel what they've noticed is particularly compelling, we can take them at their word. In contrast, if they want to state that their Support or Opposition is strong, assertion isn't enough, provide some evidence. The 'crat can then examine the evidence, and conclude that it does deserve extra weight, but you can't get extra weight for a position by just asserting it. (The minor clarification is that a "weak" oppose means you cab discount it, but you are not obliged to. If the !vote says Weak Oppose because of the multiple copyright violations and the recent block for vandalism, you don't have to accept that as a weak oppose.)-- SPhilbrick T 12:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I strongly dislike your closing rationale here. I don't really care about the result - I don't know this editor, but your explanation leaves a lot to be desired.
First: "Additionally, there were a large amount of editors in the support party that stated that the opposes were unconvincing. Thus, they hold less weight, as there is a lack of consensus surrounding the ideas behind them." This is ridiculous. They hold less wait because people who disagreed said they were unconvincing? Everybody who voted support found them unconvincing. And everybody who voted oppose found the support arguments unconvincing. Anybody who found the arguemnts convincing voted with those arguments. Saying that opposing arguments are unconvining isn't an valid counter-argument. It's like saying that content you don't like is unencyclopedic. It doesn't mean anything.
Second: "To quote WJBScribe, "there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator."" What are you trying to say here? That opposes based on lack of content creation are not valid? I really don't think that's up for you to decide. It's true that not everybody thinks that it's important. But others do, and it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose. For you to just discount it because not everybody agrees, I think is in appropriate, and not your role as a Beaurocrat. Related - your objection to people opposing because of large amounts of automated edits. Why do you get to decide whether or not that's valid, too. You're supposed to be judging consensus, not deciding what rationales are valid and which are not.
The way you pick and choose which argument are valid and which are not, based on what appear to be your own personal biases, I find quite objectionable. It seems that you don't think that content creation is important. That's fine, but I don't think that you should be using that to discount the opposition of those who do. It's not a "frivolous" reason to object.
Oh, and one more thing - the fact that an argument is challeneged does not invalidate the argument. Opposes almost always get more challenges than supports. What's to challenge if someone says, I like their contributions, etc. etc. You're just going to encourage baseless badgering with this sort of rationale.
Thanks for your time. - 208.97.245.131 ( talk) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
From edit summary deleting section: "Acknowledged. Please note that this is a moot case now. The RfA is closed (a month ago, at that), and I gave a detailed rationale. I evaluated it fairly and impartially. I'm sorry it didn't turn out in your favor."
X! with the disabling of the edit counters, you have taken away a very valuable tool in the RfA assessment process. I understand your point, but please return things to normal ASAP. Thanks-- Hokeman ( talk) 03:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Editcountitis is a perennial problem and I can understand your concern. However, your edit counters are powerful analytical tools. I find them indispensable for assessing participants' motivations in mediations. Despite editcountitis, the serious work of Wikipedia continues. We won't change human nature. But on the bright side amassing a sizeable edit count is what motivates many to keep at it. Sunray ( talk) 07:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what led up to your suspending the edit counter, but I applaud your seeking to get people to stop obsessing about edit numbers. I'm very disappointed to see more tahn one person suggesting that those who have reached a certain number of edits should automatically be made admins. Especially since I just can't understand the practice of making 20 tiny edits to an article when one thorough go-through will do. Isn't that what the preview button is for? And to me, changes are frequently related - I fix or tweak one thing, then it leads me to see another thing or I need to change another thing as a result . . . I've been told I would see it differently if I were a programmer, but it adds to my skepticism about pronouncements based on number of edits. . . . However, I eagerly await the 17th and the return of your counter because I wanted to check how far my percentage of article edits vs. everything else had sunk this month, and here I am further reducing it :-) Yngvadottir ( talk) 15:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me for playing devil's advocate but how is it a disruption to Wikipedia for a person to disable (what, in my understanding, is) a third-party tool separate from Wikipedia which they created? Is it his fault that so many people came to rely upon it that it felt like a limb was torn from them, much to the exact opposite of what X! intended (an assumption I make based upon recent actions)? There are other tools out there, should one happen to be so obsessed with edit counts (though none provide the intricacies of X!'s counter such as breaking down edits in a pie graph and numerical chart by namespace). So you'll have to forgive me, but I fail to see the logic in that argument as no essential function of Wikipedia has been broken. Nothing stops someone from heading over to
Special:Contributions,
Special:Log, or
Special:ListUsers; and if a user wishes to check their own edit count:
Special:Preferences. On another note, editcountis has plagued Wikipedia RfA's as of late and I've watched completely valid users fail RfA's because they did not have 9 x 10^11 or higher total edits (blatant overstatement, but you get the point). It makes me wonder what kind of chance I would stand, opting for my substantive edits rather than 500 reverts a day. That said, I fully support your choice to suspend usage of it for a week. Now if
Pilif12p does not mind, I am going to adopt his reaction to the obsession with edit counts.
Facepalm
ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ②
talk
22:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I am curious to see how many edits of mine have been to various categories like Talk, article, wikipedia etc. Please re-enable your excellent edit counter tool. Thanks... Modernist ( talk) 21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me. It was a rather weak oppose. I stand by it, but I recognize that community consensus doesn't agree with me. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully do not agree with your close. That rationales were challenged was a reason to discount them? Well, great, you'll encourage people on both sides of the divide to challenge the other. The supports found the opposes unconvincing? Hardly surprising, if they found them convincing, they would have opposed. I just have the feeling, reading your rationale, that the outcome of promotion was the option you felt more comfortable with, and you had a little bit of confirmation bias. This one is not a big deal. But you may have let loose an awfully big badger, only time will tell. All the best, though.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
In such a close case, I think it would have been controversial either way. Obviously, the fact that I supported the candidate makes me biased, so I won't render judgement as to whether you reached the right decision. However, I think it was good of you to give a detailed rationale where you went through the points for and against promotion, and that you balanced them in a fair manner. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I've considered whether to comment here for several days now, but I remain of the opinion that some parts of your closing comments were misguided. It seems to me unreasonable to dismiss the strongly held views of those editors who feel that admins should have some experience of building the encyclopedia rather than policing it. I am particularly worried by the possible future precedent of your quoting WJBScribe, "there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator." -- of course there isn't a consensus, otherwise such candidates would receive almost unanimous opposition and would never fall into the discretionary zone! As countless discussions on the RfA talkpage attest, there's no consensus whatsoever as to what characteristics are necessary in an administrator candidate. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Excellent User Page Award |
I looked at your user page and i was very impressed. Inka 888 ( talk) 01:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC) |
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi X!, I was wondering if you could look at the Guidelines for the Pending Changes Trial Vote commenting since Mkativerata expressed concerns over it. It's here: Wikipedia:Pending Changes/Vote comment. Thanks!
Also
![]() |
X! has been made a member of the
Order of the Mop, Kind regards and happy editing, |
Thanks for the hard you put in your tools! Ғяіᴅaз'§Đоом | Spare your time? 02:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
If you are going to unindent one of his votes, shouldn't you unindent them all? Personally I don't think that we, as bureaucrats, should involve ourselves in the ongoing edit war over the votes (it should be taken up at WT:RFA) - but there is something to be said for consistency in execution (lest it be seen as bureaucratic favourtism to the candidates where the votes remain indented). Are you aware of the ANI thread concerning this user? – xeno talk 12:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hiya, your bot reported "Lofanlongschlong", I responded at WP:UAA. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Either the bot has a bizarre sense of humor, or it's malfunctioning. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I would watch this conversation. It borders on incivility. Thanks-- intelati 20:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
intelati has given you a
Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!
Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{ subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Even though the user who added them has been warned, they continue to put scans from their DVD boxes up. I do not know how to revert them without banjaxing the page completely. Would it be possible for you to check on this? They have also done this in other shows, despite repeated warnings. Trista (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 ( talk) 02:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi X! Your bot probably shouldn't follow redirects when cleaning the sandbox [5] [6]. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Really like your Article Blamer and Edit Counter tools! Noticed your Edit Counter tool knows how many deleted edits a user has made. Any way to get to the detail of which edits were deleted? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 03:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, MessageDeliveryBot has been updated to the latest development version of Peachy, and this is a test message to make sure that everything is still working. Feel free to delete it now.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of EdoDodo at 23:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:Soxred93.
Three images were recently tagged for deletion, because they were previously orphans( File:MikeyScars.jpg, File:SVitabile.jpg, File:Capo-1-.jpg). However, since I found articles for these images, they shouldn't be tagged. ---- DanTD ( talk) 02:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring the request to use the bug reporter, just unsure if this is a bug/issue/intentional fix. This fixed my overall editcount, but apparently undeleted all my deleted 'tribs. Any idea why? sonia ♫ 09:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by West.andrew.g ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)