User talk:Interiot/archive1

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

My toolserver tools are listed at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/.

For the edit counting tools, I have two versions that aren't on the toolserver, though I don't often work on them:


Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! You might be interested in Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, Wikipedia:How to edit a page, and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you ever get bored, take a look at the list of open tasks.

You can sign your name and timestamp on talk pages and whatnot using four tildes: ~~~~. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions, or inquire at the help desk or village pump. Add yourself to the list of Wikipedians if you like.

Glad to have you, and be bold! Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 02:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HI! Well the thing is i started off trying to hunt down movies that are somewhat related to computer science/programming/hacking/It etc. Even, google, a great search engine as it is, couldn't get me a decent link, so I thought I'd add one myself. The criteria for these movies is just that. Anything to do with Computers, Electronics, Hacking, Programming. I came across a list where somebody listed Final Fantasy: Spirits Within as a techie movie, which it is not. Its a futuristic movie but it has nothing to do with the afore mentioned topics, apart from the fact that it is CG. User:Harrisbhatti

(reply left on the article's talk page) -Interiot

Indiana Academy[edit]

The suicide issue on the Indiana Academy page is currently unsubstantiated. I think (and am considering acting on) that, until substantiated links are provided, references to the suicide rate at the Academy should be left out. Let me know what you think! --Martin Osterman 12:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just showing some deference to the original poster but trying to give a more balanced view. I would lean towards removing the material also. However, I don't think it's wholly unsubstantiated, even without links. At the least, there was a perception of a problem during the start of my class. However, I don't think it's something that's important enough to mention in a three-paragraph summary of the school, especially if there aren't any solid references. --Interiot 13:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The perception isn't shared by just your class. :) Granted, though, I have heard nothing of suicides in the time I have attended or since then (2000 to present). If someone can provide references, then I'll be all for keeping it mentioned. And yes, I agree that it's not wholly unsubstantiated -- just difficult to prove! (Sorry if I seemed cranky with that first comment... it's what I get for checking Wiki at 7:30 AM LOL)--Martin Osterman 16:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I don't remember making that revert which probably means that either some got into my account or I had more than one article open at once and reverted the wrong one. My sincere apologies. -Voltaire|Talk|My Desk|[Français] 18:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding details to your uploaded images.[edit]

Hi,

When uploading an image, could you please mention the source of the image. Also, in the case of screenshots of computer games, could you specify the platform from which the screenshot was taken, and if the image has been scaled up? That's what the image-page is for. I have done this for you on Image:PopulousII.gif. Could you please do this yourself to other images that you've uploaded? Cheers. Ae-a 01:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-counting tool[edit]

I hereby award this barnstar to Interiot for his creation of a back-up to Kate's tool --TantalumTelluride 23:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

We have to show appreciation for things like this. Otherwise, the contributors might become so discouraged that they consider leaving Wikipedia. --TantalumTelluride 23:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic job filling in for Kate's tool. Many of us Wiki-stalkers would like to thank you. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any plans to add features that Kate's tool doesn't have ? Maybe a month-by-month or day-by-day breakup. A list showing how many edits were made on each page. Etc. Tintin 00:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those metrics aren't very difficult to create, so I might implement that. However my method is clearly sub-par compared to Kate's tool (slow, a bandwidth hog), so many users probably want those enhancements on top of Kate's instead. --Interiot 01:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I updated it to include a month-by-month graph, with edit-summary information as well, hopefully that will be useful for RfAs. Is there a strong case for including other statistics? --Interiot 07:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question to the bar-graphs: what are the meanings of red and green bars? --Gunter.krebs 09:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Can you please put a link back from the generated results page to the query page. Minor bug report - it doesn't show the current month. Tintin 13:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick note[edit]

"Privileged" is mis-spelled on the info page for your editcounting tool. BD2412 T 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Greetings, he-whose-editcountitis-consumes-200MB-of-bandwidth-a-day. [1] Anyway, fixed, thanks. --Interiot 20:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't possible to check edits on commons - as commons.wikimedia.org has one too many characters for the box. Thryduulf 11:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My version of Flcelloguy's Tool[edit]

Regarding the namespaces that are listed here, the current ones are for en.wikipedia.org. However, the namespaces for other languages are very different (example). (though, as far as I can tell, I think they're all at most "word1 word2:"). The best way that I've figured out so far is to fetch the language files via CVS (a copy is here), and extract the entries somehow. --Interiot 04:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True. I haven't worked on inter-wiki operability yet. That'll have to wait until we have the tool working properly here, then deploy to other projects. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 04:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Software error on count[edit]

Hi, i've found en error. By the way what is the graph reds and greens:) [2]

Software error: Illegal division by zero at /home/interiot/faleg/cgi-bin/wannabe_kate line 199.

I just want to inform you.--Ugur Basak 09:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same error on [3]
One more info. For example Wikipedia and its new form Vikipedi must be both counted as Vikipedi or Wikipedia--Ugur Basak 09:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, I've fixed it to some extent (eg. it doesn't spit out an error message). Unfortunately, support for other languages is currently somewhat limited (though EN, DE, and IT should work 100%). Apologies to other languages, but the method that Kate's tool uses really is superior. --Interiot 17:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kate's tool may be superior, but you can improve yours:) there's no buggy program--Ugur Basak 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bug report[edit]

Please see Nichalp's count here - [4] and contributions at [5] He had 5 edits in Jan 2004 and 93 in Feb 2004. But the tool shows no count for January and 98 for February. Tintin 21:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the sharp eye. It was caused by a timezone problem, and it's fixed. --Interiot 21:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • and thanks for fixing it so promptly ! Tintin 21:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does your tool handle Portal and Portal talk edits? I've got a few and they're not showing up. Oh, and thanks for the tool, it's nice to have while Kate's missing. Blackcap (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, another bug. It should be fixed now. --Interiot 02:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely, thanks. Nice and fast, you are. Blackcap (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

I give you this barnstar as a result of your hard work building Interiot's tool...a.k.a. "wannabe Kate." I like the graphs too, I say keep it up. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Cheers! Blackcap (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. :) --Interiot 02:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change for your tool[edit]

You should change the <div>'s for the color bars into <td>'s instead so they never force a line break for months where the total number of edits is greater than the highest green bar, which presently is guaranteed to happen at least once. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I was thinking the same thing too. The bars are presently rescaled to fit into "500px", so most users wouldn't see a line break. And it's not the end of the world if it breaks — no information is lost, it's just a little harder to compare. But it's also an easy change. *shrug* --Interiot 17:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your tool[edit]

I have listed on my page all of the articles that I have created. I believe that there are in the order of 100 articles that I basically created from scratch and are lengthy articles of a good standard. There were another 20 more articles that were merged, and about 30 others which were taken over by someone else. I think that you are wrong in suggesting that Mo0 has made more edits than me. If you check out his contributions, 90% of them were made in the past month. In other words, he is a newbie. Secondly, you will note that much more than half of his edits were simply reverting vandalism (or should I say "alleged vandalism" since I haven't checked them out - note that a lot of people claim it is vandalism when it is a legitimate edit). Just have a look at what I did on Peter Falconio disappearance, where I have made 90% of the contributions myself, as well as all of the associated articles, before you start saying that I haven't contributed anything. I have also participated in AFDs and in discussions of ways to improve Wikipedia. I don't think that Mo0 has done either. My point of course is that I am basically a newbie, and I don't know what I am doing and it would be ridiculous to suggest that I could make admin. Yet you are suggesting someone who is twice the newbie I am to be made admin. That is the ridiculousness of the suggestion, put bluntly. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (reply posted on your user page. Short of it: I didn't mean to offend you, or in any way discount your obviously large contributions) --Interiot 17:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counting tool[edit]

Hi I just wanted to let you know that I like your tool very much. The graph showing the edit summaries is a very nice plus. Anyway thanks for your tool. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improved tool[edit]

I just clicked on the link, and it is much improved! Thank you! It surprised me actually as to how much I'd edited certain edits. However, there is one note. My major contribution has actually been to Peter Falconio disappearance, its just that each edit has been enormous, and I have mainly only done this one day apart. Also, the first 50 edits I made to that page have not been counted because I didn't have an account then. Whilst I suppose that you can't do anything about that, I wonder if perhaps it could note just how much work I've spent on that one. Whilst other ones I've mostly just done fiddly bits for. For example when I made Barrow Creek, Northern Territory, that took me 4 hours to do that, with all of the research. I don't know if there is some way to do that. A word count? Maybe I am asking too much here. I guess it is all subjective. Also note that many of my edits were then merged all in to one file later on lol so in effect the talker page has had over 700 edits in it by me. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, that's sort of what I was alluding to on the RfA comment [6]. In the RfA process, I think the community generally prefers to see an edit pattern closer to Mo0's.
Unfortunately, it's not possible for my tool to do metrics based on the contents of the changes. And yup, it's all subjective in the end. --Interiot 01:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The new additions are just fabulous. Tintin 01:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby award Interiot another barnstar for his incredibly amazing additions to his edit-counting tool. --TantalumTelluride 02:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC) (KC)[reply]

Wow! I'm going to stay up all night counting edits! (Not really.) Your edit counter is amazing. Now it's as good as (if not better than) Kate's tool. I can't describe the utter coolness of your tool with barnstars. Your achievement is beyond barnstars. You are now a Wikipedia God-King. Please keep up the good work, and never think about leaving Wikipedia! --TantalumTelluride 02:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say it, Interiot- I like your tool more than I like Kate's Tool. The per-page and the division of pages into types of pages helps me understand both the focus of my edits as well as where I am slackig. Well done.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grr...[edit]

You beat us to implementing per-page statistics! :P Anyways, good job on the tool. Anyways, here's some minor nit-picking. You could change the following text on your page:

It should work with most wikis out there that use Wikimedia code, since it doesn't need privileged access to databases.

to:

It should work with most wikis out there that use MediaWiki, since it doesn't need privileged access to the databases.

This gives me an idea... perhaps there should be a WikiProject edit counters or something! :P Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I'll update it. I've got several more ideas to flesh out on the data counter, and perl lets me slice and dice data all day, but I'm pretty limited working from an HTML-scrapper standpoint. I'd love to work with others, or otherwise get more direct access to the data. --Interiot 01:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there used to be a time when we could make direct SQL queries to the database, but that was disabled for performance reasons. So, the only way we can do this is through scraping the HTML (or getting a separate account on the Toolserver, but then, that kinda defeats the purpose of an alternate edit counter). But sure, it would be good to trade ideas and code every once in a while. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the best backup to the SQL/toolserver is AJAX running on en.wikipedia.org itself (like Lupin's popups). It would be easier for users to set up, is browser-based, but unlike mine, isn't dependent on any outside servers (and especially not dependent on them providing free bandwidth). Right now though, I'm more interested in analysis (which, for me, is easier to do in Perl) rather than a simplified backup. --Interiot 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counter (minor edits)[edit]

Is it possible for the edit counter to count how many edits were minor (and maybe give a percentage)? Thanks for the helpful tool. Gflores Talk 22:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about something along those lines too, as well as doing a count of how many edit summaries start with "rv" or "revert". Regarding minor edits though, I don't quite grok yet where they're used, or how they're useful. Do you think many people would use the minor-counting functionality? --Interiot 02:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This could be useful in a number of ways. The first thing that pops into my mind is for RfAs. It could be useful in counting the number of reverted vandals, and the number of non-minor content edits on main pages, instead of lumping them together. Also another note, it could be useful to have the actual number for both commented and non-commented edits per month listed. The visual is pretty nifty, but it might be nice to get an exact count. Anyway, really nice work! — TheKMantalk 17:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm mainly only interested in enhancing the tool to support RfA at this point. I'll add these some time this week, if only to try it out. With the extra analysis I've added so far, I'm always suprised because it ends up being more useful than I thought it would be. --Interiot 18:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha!!! So I'm your model, eh?[edit]

Couldn't help noticing that you've used my edit count as the model at User:Interiot/Tool. Well, carry on, then. :-D BD2412 T 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

;) Well, Ed Poor's history is downright ancestral, and takes way way too long. But yes, yours is the second-scariest history I've run across so far. I was wondering whether you'd notice. :) --Interiot 02:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How sad that I noticed it was BD without looking at this page... :P. By the way, I noticed something strange while testing my latest addition to Flcelloguy's Tool. Kate's Tool says I have 6,854 edits, but your tool (and Flcelloguy's) say that I have 6,855 (6,856 now). Does that mean that KT is not real-time? Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 18:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means I have a bug. Actually, I'd consider it to be a MediaWiki bug, in that when you hit the "next 500" link, the first link is actually a repeat entry from the previous page. This is particularly bad if you ever try to look through your history one at a time... hitting "next 1" actually ends up doing nothing! [7] Nonetheless, this is a known issue that I plan to change my code to accomodate. --Interiot 19:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using the edit counter with other sites[edit]

Hey, had a quick question, is your edit counter limited to the wikipedia only? When I try to use it with my wiki (http://brandt-watch.org) I get 'Invalid value. email Interiot if this is incorrect.'. No complaints here, if it is, but I'm curious ;] --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 07:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see the problem. I'll see if I can fix it soon. --Interiot 18:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pearle is breaking templates[edit]

Sorry about that...should be all fixed now. -- Beland 22:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RnB-album-stub[edit]

I have created the {{RnB-album-stub}} template, because one previously didn't exist, and I found Back to the Future: The Very Best of Jodeci tagged as a hip-hop album stub. --FuriousFreddy 04:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fillet[edit]

Thanks for splitting Fillet. I, too, am an eventualist and this is just what I hoped for. —BenFrantzDale 05:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oinkness ( Newbie )[edit]

HELLO! Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia by taking such a.... *cough*... interest in the Rainwound article! I'm slowly but surely figuring out how to use the discussion area of the site. I don't know if I am doing it right though, I hit edit on Fillet and put my thing in under the Fillet comment.... I don't know if that is what I am supposed to do.... well thanks! --Oinkness 19:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counter[edit]

Would it be possible to add an edits/per day - overall, and maybe for the previous 30 days ? tia, Tintin 01:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tool down?[edit]

Hmm... while trying to debug Flcelloguy's Tool by comparing our output with yours, I got a "faleg.org cannot be found" error. Is your tool down, or did we eat all your alloted bandwidth already? :P

P.S: We're thinking about moving the tool to a subpage of Wikipedia:Tools. You should do it too, so all the editcounters are on the same place. Flcelloguy is the one who is organizing the move, so you might want to talk to him. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • sigh. No, the ISP's connection just goes away sometimes. I can't SSH in either. It should be back in an hour or two, sorry about that. --Interiot 06:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the server the CGI script runs on seems to be blocked by *.wikipedia.org now... until that's fixed, it looks like the tool is down, sorry. --Interiot 21:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does this mean indefinitely? I'm getting a 403 when trying to run the tool. Tedernst | talk 04:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The tool should be back here in the next day or two, and hopefully it can be on the toolserver at some point, since the cache admins indicated that's the proper way to go. --Interiot 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Got it working that new way, but it's still missing the graphics from before ;-) Search4Lancer 03:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, should be working soonish. --Interiot 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA[edit]

By the way, thanks for supporting my RfA, Interiot (and for your tool, which made it possible for Prodego to track the thousand edits I made that week) - I'll do my best as an admin to help make the dream of Wikipedia into a reality! BD2412 T 22:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feature request[edit]

In some respects, your "wannabe_kate" tool is actually better than Kate's original. I especially like the graphic display of use of edit summaries. Can you add a numeric percentage displayed next to each bar? Alternately (or maybe additioanlly), can you please add a lifetime edit-summary percentage column for each of the namespaces displayed? Thank you! Owen× ☎ 17:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The overLIB tooltips would work, although it may be an overkill for just showing the monthly edit-summary percentage (unless you planned on displaying additional information in the tooltips). As for the edit-summary column: the first list currently displayed is the lifetime total edits for each namespace. What I suggested was adding a second column, showing the edit-summary usage (in percent) for each of those namespaces. So if you, for example, have a total of 13 edits in the Image_talk namesapce and 5 of them have an edit summary, it would show a 38.5% next to the 13. Owen× ☎ 20:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some features people have asked for include: 1) the actual number of edit summaries, 2) the percentage of edit summaries, 3) what do red and green mean anyway? Plus, I'm going to add minor/non-minor, and some things like that, and the tooltip can be used to explain blue/green/red/purple, rather than having a legend. Ahh, I see, yeah, the namespaces, I'm going to break them out sort of like I do the edit summaries, and major/minor (you'll see in a couple days/weeks, when I get it done). Once those changes are in, ping me if you think they don't completely do what you were hoping they would. --Interiot 20:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my edit counter was blocked, because screen scraping isn't the most efficient way to do it. If I'm able to do this in a more efficient way, or if I otherwise get it to be more accessible to users, I'll implement the above suggestions. (my todo list is quite long, I was hoping to get the new features implemented over christmas break, but we'll see). --Interiot 01:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Code.js[edit]

I've tried to get this to work, and I've made it all the way to where I can submit the username and it "retrives the data," but then it stops and shows me no information. Any suggestions? JHMM13 (T | C) 22:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me the server/URL/username you're running it with? Most likely, it's because the tool needs some amount of work to get it working on non-English servers. I'm halfway through setting it up for the korean server, for instance, but still have a bug or two to work out. --Interiot 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know what that means (sometimes you should dumb it down for us non-code-speaking people!), but I think I'm running it in your english wikipedia thing...I copied into my monobook.js exactly what is on your website and after a refresh, looking at your code.js page allowed me to see what you said it would see (the entry box and a "Sumbit" button). I typed in my user name (and several others), and it said "retrieving data" and when it finished that, those words went away and an empty page remained. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, it's because of javascript differences between Internet Explorer and Firefox. I'm not currently maintaining the .js though. But kate's tool is running properly here, and runs faster, and provides no less info than the .js, so that's probably better to use. --Interiot 02:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your editcounter[edit]

Hi!

When I call your editcounter it gives me this message: 

While trying to fetch <a href='http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Klever&offset=0&limit=5000'>http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Klever&offset=0&limit=5000</a>, de.wikipedia.org responded:<br><br>
403 Forbidden<br><br><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>ERROR: The requested URL could not be retrieved</TITLE>
<STYLE type="text/css"><!--BODY{background-color:#ffffff;font-family:verdana,sans-serif}PRE{font-family:sans-serif}--></STYLE>
</HEAD><BODY>
<H1>ERROR</H1>

<H2>The requested URL could not be retrieved</H2>
<HR noshade size="1px">
<P>
While trying to retrieve the URL:
<A HREF="http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Klever&offset=0&limit=5000">http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Klever&offset=0&limit=5000</A>
<P>
The following error was encountered:
<UL>
<LI>
<STRONG>
Access Denied.
</STRONG>

<P>
Access control configuration prevents your request from
being allowed at this time.  Please contact your service provider if
you feel this is incorrect.
</UL>
<P>Your cache administrator is <A HREF="mailto:wikidown@bomis.com">wikidown@bomis.com</A>. 


<BR clear="all">
<HR noshade size="1px">
<ADDRESS>
Generated Mon, 02 Jan 2006 12:51:02 GMT by srv6.wikimedia.org (squid/2.5.STABLE12)
</ADDRESS>
</BODY></HTML>

What is this??

Thanks, de:User:Klever

PS: At the time it was working it was much better than kate's...

I've posted a "summary of development" note at the top of this page. --Interiot 13:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot[edit]

Current GUI

Here's a copy of the UI as it appears now. We've finally figured out how to get around the local-file-save method, so we're going to start working on the tool more. The thing is, I'm not a Java programmer, I'm more of a BASIC writer... *sigh*. Just wondering, how much Java do you know? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do agree that the tool server is the best way to access the contribs, and I would gladly help out with the Javascript version, only that I really suck at Javascript. :( Besides, we were planning on adding additional features (like the ability to save queries to the local disk for storage, etc.) that might be blocked by the AJAX security restrictions, and we want to have something in case the tool server fails (which was the whole reason we started the project) so I'll probably keep programming here. But hey, I don't mind sharing code back and forth (We had already implemented minor-edit analysis, and we were working on per-month analysis to go with those). Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

count_edits & namespaces[edit]

hi. you can't assume namespace 100 is always "Portal" - on meta, for example, it's "Hilfe" (German Help namespace), and on commons "Creator". (this will be easier when they're stored in the database...) kate. 09:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counting tool 2[edit]

I've been running a edit counting tool at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship for several days now (with discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Edit summary usage for RfA candidates?), see sample. Well, today OwenX told me that you are working on the same thing, and that actually you had the code for a while. Now, what to do? :) I don't care much either way, I did not know you were working on that tool and you have it ready. I wonder if you can comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Edit summary usage for RfA candidates? about this. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've responded at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/ArbCom candidates. Great work! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit message[edit]

Well, I was viewing it in normal non-preview mode the whole time, and I distinctly saw an external link appear. True, I don't know exactly what you were doing at the time, but something you did almost worked. And most likely that something was the <a href>. --Interiot 05:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having tested it now on my home copy, I think you're right, Interiot. Do I try it out? I think the preview-edit thing was just a quirk cause by multiple servers. jnothman talk 08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counter[edit]

Hi! I installed your editcounter on my server today and my webserver gave me the error when I was trying to check de.user.Klever: 

Illegal division by zero at C:/Programme/xampp/htdocs/kate2.pl line 214, line 968. ,

What's this??

thanks, de:User:Klever

Unknown namespace[edit]

Thank you for your work. I was checking a user contribution for rfa and noticed Unknown namespace 100 and 101. Had not seen it before. What does it refer to?--Dakota ~ ε 23:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That happens on WP:KATE too. On en.wikipedia.org, 100 refers to Portal: and 101 refers to Portal talk:. Unfortunately, on other servers the namespace is used for other things (see kate's message above), so a more ambiguous message is displayed for now. Eventually we'll get this displaying a server-specific namespace. --Interiot 23:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. The edit summary function is especially helpful. Keep up the good work.--Dakota ~ ε 02:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on the tool[edit]

I see that you added links to your very userful tool in people's RfA, which is great. If you want, I can train my bot which is adding edit summary usage anyway to also add the link to your tools (edit summary usage tool and edit count tool). Wonder what you think. You can reply here. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when your own bot adding edit stats to people's RfA pages comes online, I would suggest it use less graphics on the actual RfA pages than it uses on the server. One could write some shorter version in the RfA pages and refer for more to the server. What do you think? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the current reports I generate here, I'm generating by hand, running a perl script from the command line. I don't want to get the script blocked again, so I'm running it the minimum times required.
Regarding the newer version, I guess I wasn't intending to edit people's RFA's directly like you're currently doing. *shrug* I could, but like you pointed out, there aren't as many options for displaying a lot of data. I had always intended for people to just visit the tool's URL like they always have (either individually, or by a human adding the link to the RFA, though it could be automated too, I guess...)
I don't know, the only advantage I can think of adding the report to the RFA is that it creates a permanent record that's still available if the tool goes down. What do you think? --Interiot 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the advantage of adding things to the RfA directly is that more people will see the data that way. Otherwise, if somebody wants to see a current RfA candidate edit count, one would need to open a new tab (window) in the browser, type or get from a bookmark the address of your tool or Kate's tool, type in the user's name, and wait for the result, then go back to the RfA. I don't think many people bother. And for myself, the edit summary usage is a very important benchmark of how attentive a user is, I truly want everybody to see it. :)
So, should I also add a link to your tool or not? :) (OK, there are two tools, one is the edit count, which is automatical, and the second is the edit summary, which you do by hand, so I guess I am asking about the first one). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've always hoped that the people voting in RfA were experienced, that they were people who had watched a number of votes, and were familiar with the tools that people sometimes use. I guess it's possible that's overly optimistic in some cases.
I don't have a problem if you link to my tool. ;) I guess, since you're already going to the effort to add another line to the history, it doesn't hurt to add more links. At some point, the URL will change, to allow users to optionally get non-realtime data that's more comprehensive, but if you have your bot add the links, I can ping you once that change goes in.
Also, for what it's worth, kate's tool currently spits out a couple different kinds of output that can be used for data bots. [8] [9] I dont' support this sort of thing now, because the data products are still changing, but something like that could eventually be used to give data to other programs. --Interiot 01:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will add the link to your tool, maybe tomorrow. I see you are not very enthusiastic about the idea though. I think we just have different mindsets, I like to use bots to edit pages directly, you like to do things externally. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*shrug* I don't care much. I have a timid personality, I'm often afraid of forcing things on people. Go for it though. --Interiot 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He-he. :) So we are different. :) Each day I bug at least five users about missing edit summaries, poor style, bad use of the rollback button. Come on Interiot, that's the joy of life, bugging others (as long as one keeps some manners that is :) OK, I will add the link this weekend. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tendercrisp Bacon Cheddar Ranch photos[edit]

Cool photo for the article. Do you have any of Hootie doing his thing? Youngamerican 04:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Contributing[edit]

Cute edit to the user box. Next time, try adding something, rather than altering accurate information. Quite amusing. --Dschor 08:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you want a hand formatting your user page - it looks a bit funny with that image running into the userboxes. --Dschor 08:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Thanks for the new box, too. --Dschor 08:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more good-natured than you might have guessed. BTW, your procrastinator box looks lopsided - is that intentional? If it is, it is a clever subtlety. I'm tempted to templatize that one, but I would probably center the emblem. Let me know what you think. --Dschor 09:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the pile-on...[edit]

Include me? - brenneman(t)(c) 09:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably for each of us to decide for our selves. I think on balance you've been a moderating influence. </excessive seriousness> --Dschor 09:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your arbcom stats parser...[edit]

...won't correctly interpret any lines starting with #*. Adding a * to the character character sets in your @supports/@opposes regexes will fix it, ie 

my @supports = ($support =~ m/^(#[^:#;].*)/mgi);
my @opposes  = ($oppose =~ m/^(#[^:#;].*)/mgi);

to 

my @supports = ($support =~ m/^(#[^:#;*].*)/mgi);
my @opposes  = ($oppose =~ m/^(#[^:#;*].*)/mgi);

—Cryptic (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed, thanks for the look over. --Interiot 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...awesome idea and I bookmarked it. You may want to take a look at taking aranda56 off the list since he resigned. —Ilyanep (Talk) 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it now as soon as my SSH connection to the toolserver behaves. --Interiot 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/arbcom --Interiot 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tintin Talk 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely idea, very useful. Please put a word or two about this onto your entry on meta:Toolserver/Projects. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and done. --Interiot 19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what does 'will beback' mean? —Ilyanep (Talk) 12:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Will Beback's first edit was on 2005/12/31 08:30:08, and Will voted for several candidates, but it's not clear that the user has suffrage. --Interiot 16:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are exceptions that automatic tools can't detect, so that's what human review and whitelists are for, and Will Beback has been whitelisted. On the other hand, toolserver database replication is down right now, so my tool is currently... less than useful. --Interiot 17:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha... —Ilyanep (Talk) 18:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counter[edit]

Interiot, looks like the edits/day in http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits has got stuck. Tintin Talk 19:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific field, and could you describe "stuck" a little more? If you're talking about "Median edits/day" though, that one's a tiny bit deceptive. It really means "Median edits per month / 30.42, ignoring months that have 0 edits". That statement has some tricky implications, but one of them is that, because it's a median, and because only one month's values are changing, typically "median edits per month" is constant over periods of time. I guess it would be better to do some sort of operation to discount months that are outliers, and then do an average (instead of a median) of the remaining months, though with only two decimal places displayed, I'm still not sure you'd see any short-term change since you have ~4300 total edits over several months. --Interiot 19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay <scratches head>. I somehow interpreted it to mean edits/day from the day of the first post. Thanks. Tintin Talk 20:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, displaying it as "Median edits/month" would be the correct way, as it's not really calculating a daily median. Too bad you got rid of the edit summary statistics; any progress with implementing my idea? Owen× ☎ 18:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it's divided by 30.42.  :) I don't know, I have the feeling that people grok daily edit counts better than monthly edit counts, because the default view of their own Special:Contributions quickly gives them some kind of comparison to say "this person is editing more than me" or visa versa.
Yeah, greatly improved edit counting is somewhere near the top of my list of things to do, though it's a little more difficult than I thought, and things like the arbcom script keep taking more time than I think they will. --Interiot 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the tool is barfing on special characters again. ;) The 'á' in my own name as an example. Figured you would want to know. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old bugs crop up because the code is entirely new now. But thanks for the note, it should work now. --Interiot 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, actually, I was going through your tool and manually checking (with Lupin's popups) the ones that your tool had highlighted. Most of them did not have suffrage, although one created an account (but did not edit) before the deadline. Great tool! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've removed the fake vote ...[edit]

Thanks for letting me know. --- ProveIt 20:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oblique Shock[edit]

Hi Interiot. You put a cleanup and stub marker on Oblique_shock. It survived AFD after I rewrote it, but there doesn't seem to be any interest in expanding it. Any problem with letting it be redirected to Shock wave? AKAF 06:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contrib tree tool[edit]

Hello, Interiot. Your contributions_tree script is quite spiffy! :) One thing, though: It sorts out the edited pages per number of edits by default in all namespaces, except the Wikipedia namespace (#4), which is sorted out alphabetically. Here's an example: [10]. Is there a particular reason for that? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh, my first two bug reports are about the same thing, maybe it's not as user-friendly as I'd hoped.
This is actually a feature. On any of the namespaces, you can choose to either sort by name, or by edit counts (the header has a little link that you can click to change the sort order... though I suppose that links like this, on webpages at least, often aren't intuitive to users). Anyway, if the user doesn't choose a particular sort order, I usually default to number of edits, but I default to sorting by name for the Wikipedia: space so that 1) users realize there's more than one way to sort, and 2) because I think the sort-by-name is more useful in wikipedia space, because there are many different kinds of edits (wikiprojects, afd, etc) that are easier to sort through by name. If any of these intuitions are off though, please let me know. --Interiot 22:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, the <blink> is probably too obnoxious.  :) I've turned off the underline-only-on-hover for that link though too, hopefully that makes it slightly more intuitive though. I'm not sure if there are any other good ideas to try or not. --Interiot 22:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a sum of the edits in the main page. Tintin Talk 23:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'm not too sure how far I want to take this, as there are so many people (you, Oleg, Titoxd, etc.) who seem to have far better programming skills than me. :-) Also, I've never worked with large projects like this - I've been mainly working on local implementations of Java, and some simulations. I'll consider your comments. By the way, I noticed that you weren't an admin yet - do you have any interest in becoming one? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Blushes* :) A good idea would be to create a WikiProject (or a subpage of Wikipedia:Tools) to coordinate efforts for this, and move both tools there, with a central coordination area. I've already got another user who has said he's interesting in helping, so it would better to do it sooner than later. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What if I don't know SQL? :-) Anyways, I'll do a nomination for you, Interiot, as soon as possible (probably tomorrow; I hope you don't mind the delay). A WikiProject would be a great idea, Titoxd - I'm going to go ahead and create it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just noting that it's a nice opportunity either way. Tommorow would be fine, of course. :) Something like a tools version of Wikipedia:Press_coverage would be good, or weekly digest of what goes on in wikitech-l, or... I don't know. Wikipedia:Tools is something to start with too. --Interiot 01:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the link to the WikiProject is a bluelink now... :) Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to your questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject edit counters. One question, though: are you going to add yourself to the member list? I'm a bit iffy to add a link to WP:INT until you add yourself to the list of participants... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay; I was busy yesterday. Your nomination is now completed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Interiot. Once you accept and answer the question, change the time (use the five tildes ~~~~~) and the date, if needed, and then place the transclusion on the RfA page. Good luck! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way: your ArbCom tool, at the bottom, says it flags votes if "...the user created their account on or before September 30, 2005". Shouldn't that be after September 30? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer Overflow Article[edit]

Alot has improved in Buffer overflow, saw you linked to the article. still work to do, but what do you think? -- Tompsci 01:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Ultraexactzz[edit]

Thanks for pointing that out to me. It was just a mistake, and I have gotten rid of my "Oppose" vote. Jared 12:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counter[edit]

Hi, sorry for seeming to bug you the whole day today, I had a look at youredit counter today and got the shock of my life. Median edits/day in my case was 6.02; however, a rough calculation shows me that mean edits/day is close to 20. In my case, the huge difference could be due to the fact that I barely edited for the first four months. Anyways, I believe mean edits/day is more intuitive and easier to understand than median edits/day. You may want to include mean edits/day as well or remove median edits/day. Thanks a ton for your great work in providing these tools, especially the tree - it is fabulous. and btw, your user page was one of the best I've seen around. :) --Gurubrahma 13:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to remove lower-end outliers, especially wikibreaks, but you're right, median doesn't do it, so I changed it per request. Read the caveats somewhere above about medians, the same caveats apply (I'm actually using months, not days), so that will depress the average a little bit. If this is a noticable problem, ping me again, and it wouldn't take too much work to change it to use the two day-boundaries instead.
Thanks for the many kind words. :) --Interiot 15:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom[edit]

Thanks for asking! I'm afraid I'm not around much these days, but I did took the time to evaluate the new candidates. See my contribs for details. Yours, Radiant_>|< 17:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topaz's Wikiscripts[edit]

Have a look at my Wikiscripts... the edit count util lets people right click on links to userpages and load your tool instead! ~Topaz♪♫∆ 18:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Wikipedia growth[edit]

The current articles analysing Wikipedia's growth are out of date, so I thought I'd try to update them. As a basis for that I would need data of the number of articles at any given time, and the most flexible basis for this would be a list of article creation dates. The database is a tad to big for me to install on my small server, though, so it would be nice if you could run a query for me, generating a list consisting of simply the date of creation of each article, without any other information about the articles. For example: 

2006-01-14 21:51:51
2002-12-12 01:25:14
2005-11-13 08:28:27

and so on with about 900000 lines. Getting it in sorted order would be handy, but sorting it myself won't be too much trouble either. I will create a script taking such a list as input and producing a set of images showing the growth in various ways, along with predictions according to a few models. If this turns out well, it could be used to make regularily updated growth predictions, much like the current size statistics. Amaurea 20:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks doable, I think. It would product a 17mb output file, and gziped it wouldn't be too bad. Have you seen m:Wikistats though? If you haven't, you might want to talk with Erik Zachte to see how much your interests overlap with his. And, for example, this looks very close to what you're looking for? --Interiot 20:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the wikistats, but they are pretty low resolution, and they do not try to fit the data to a model (as far as I can see, atleast). It would probably be easy for Erik Zachte to expand his system to include what I'd like to make, though, since he probably is doing quite similar database queries anyway, so I think I'll try talking to him at some point. By the way: Would it be much harder to query for the date the articles fulfilled the official article criterion instead of just the creation date? It would make the numbers a bit more accurate, but it isn't important if it is harder to do. Amaurea 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the toolserver has a table of the links as they currently stand, with no dates on them, so it's much easier to do the former. And just so I'm clear, the official definition of the 900,000 articles is... articles that have at least one outbound link (eg. articles that link to at least one other article), right? --Interiot 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imposter[edit]

FYI, you have an impoter User:Interiot`. Of course, I've blocked indefinately. No damage done. --Doc ask? 22:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. :) --Interiot 22:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was a tiny bit honored to have an imposter for the first time, but the vandalism was not so cool. If there are legitimate grievences about my behavior, bring it up in my RFA, or better yet, please let me know so I can try to make amends. --Interiot 02:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? I'm pretty sure that if you had an impostor, you must be doing something right... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have admin tools though, so I can't remember who I might have offended who also frequents RFA, though my memory is pretty poor. --Interiot 20:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bug[edit]

  • In the last couple of days the edit counter has been inaccurate for my edits. It says that i have 1030 edits, but i have 1050+ edits. Maybe this is a bug? - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 12:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hrm, that is a bit odd. It looks like database replication has completely stopped... my edit count hasn't changed for over 24 hours either. There's supposed to be a fix coming for the replication lag in the next ~1 week, hopefully it will be better soon. (also, Kate's tool and mine use very very similar queries, so it's not any different AFAIK) --Interiot 18:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Interiot. My edit counts haven't changed in 2 days using both yours and Kate's. Still a good tool though. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, the toolserver stopped replicating information from Wikipedia around 2006/01/14 16:01:18 UTC, and this affects all tools on the toolserver. Hopefully it can be fixed soon. --Interiot 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Interiot/archive1&oldid=1145849681"