User talk:Misza13/Archives/2015/01

This 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.

Archive Map Special RfA-thanks Year 2005 Year 2006 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2007 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2008 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2009 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2010 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2011 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2012 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2013 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Year 2014 I IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI Year 2015 I II III IV VI VII VIII IX XI XII Archive for %(monthname)s %(year)d Przypomnienie :) A tak ci przypominam o wczorajszej rozmowie (bo widze, ża masz flage admina znowu). Devwebtel (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Rollback nadany. Używaj odpowiedzialnie, itp., itd. ;-) Pozdro, —Миша13 14:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Dzięki, za jakiś czas pewnie złożę podanie na Pending changes reviewer (na twojej stronce dyskusji, bo najłatwiej mi się z tobą gada :D), ale najpierw jeszcze dużo poedytuje (przed 100 się nie zgłosze raczej). W sumie zadania grupy podobne, zaufanie to samo, ale gdybym dostał wcześniej to pewnie by to było odbierane negatywnie. Czy jak narazie nie "wandalizuje" rollbackiem :)? Devwebtel (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC) PS: Nie znasz zasady, że odpowiada się na stronie dyskusji rozmówcy :D? Taka jest tradycja pl.wiki. Tutaj częściej odpowiada się w tym samym miejscu gdzie wiadomość. Ot taka "tradycja regionalna", a tak przynajmniej cała dyskusja jest "w kupie" gdy wyląduje w archiwum. ;) —Миша13 21:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Nawet lepiej tak :), ale niestety nie odpowiedziałeś na pytania (w tym na najważniejsze, czy nie "wandalizuje" rollbackiem) :). Devwebtel (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Goings On Hi Misza, good to see you again. Wikilife is okay, though I am definitely less active than I was in the past. You asked about what's changed in the last five years. Not exactly a simple topic, but I'll give it a go. To start with the editor community has shrunk and become more mature. The median edit these days comes from an account with >3 years of activity. It makes things less chaotic as most people have a decent idea of what is what, but it is also symptomatic of problems we have with newbie acquisition and retention. At the same time, WP:RFA is pretty dead, and no one know what to do about that (or even if that is a problem). The WMF has matured, and now budgets tens of millions of dollars annually. In general, that leads to a more stable editing environment with more features. Including some features that prove controversial. Important developments you may have missed: We now have a full programming language available within Wikipedia: Lua based on the Lua programming language. This has made things like string manipulation and reference templates so much faster, and helped replace some of the messes made in vague attempts to make template code Turing-complete. The HHVM revolution has made nearly all aspects of Wikipedia faster. [1] Notifications are now a thing. Learn to love {{ping}}. Toolserver is dead, long live Wikimedia Labs. Not a exactly a seemless transition, with a number of tools lost, and a good-sized helping of developer and user frustration. Visual Editor is an alternative GUI editing interface based on the Parsoid backend. For a while, the new editor was enabled by default, until half the world rebelled against it (too many bugs, not enough feature support). It continues to be developed in the background, which probably means it will return someday. You can try it out using the "Beta" options your preferences. Media Viewer is another "improvement" that met with community rebellion, though it continues to be used by some other wikis. Work continues of Flow, a new design for talk pages and other interaction pages. It is pretty revolutionary, so I rather expect a big fight over this one too. On the plus side, the documentation now says it handles most wikitext. In the past, it had only limited support for Wikitext, which pretty much guaranteed it wasn't going to fly. General Sanctions have made it easier to deal with recurring problems. There has also been a proliferation of Noticeboards. Wikimedia's Bugzilla is dead, long live Phabricator. The annual pleadings for money have grown more annoying (and apparently more effective, $55M in 2014). Wikidata is a now a thing that exists. It is meant as a global repository for the kinds of bite-sized facts that fit in infoboxes. There is considerable functionality though the uptake and exploitation of that functionality here has been slow. However, it has been used to replace most interlanguage links. I'm sure I am forgetting several major things, but let's stop there for now. A lot has happened, and a lot has stayed the same. Dragons flight (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC) @Dragons flight: :-) Thanks a lot for that, this was more elaborate than I expected! I've noticed the technical improvements, especially the Labs, where I was like "WAT, they're giving free shell accounts with replica database access to anyone, no questions asked?" Then, I reactivated one of my bots there and immediately noticed it runs much faster. Then I was shocked to discover Lua. Lots and lots new tools. I guess good times for the tech-savvy people. Sad to see RfA being dead, I might do some analytics myself to see how that relates to actual admin workload. I'm glad tho that the community is still intact - I was afraid some years ago that the end of Wikipedia will come through toxic minorities becoming too vocal and gaining significance. I have noticed that Arbitrators have seemingly more work on their hands than ever. Glad to see the status of adminbots (a topic very dear to me) has improved over the years (a few official ones seem to be running now). Pleasantly surprised that WP:ADMINBOTS is still pretty much the same piece of text I wrote years ago. In general, I'm looking for ways to possibly get myself involved with the Project again, albeit only lightly (I don't have as much free time as I used to). Thus, I'm looking for major unresolved issues where some plain old reason plus technical expertise might become useful. —Миша13 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Yeah, Lua is pretty awesome, and I highly recommend it. The community of active Lua writers is very small. I did a lot of early work in that area, though haven't touched it much lately. (I tend to get excited about the new shiny things, and pursue them for a while before rediscovering that I have a life to worry about. It was the same with Abusefilter.) In the early days of Lua most of the effort went into untangling the mess that was template code (and making things much faster). While there is still a lot of template code out there, I think we have already hit many of the targets that have the largest performance implications. By contrast, there hasn't been a lot of exploring what Lua might accomplish that templates couldn't. A few things have been done. For example, templates like {{main}} and {{max}} now accept arbitrarily long parameter lists, and the citation templates now check and warn users about unknown parameters (using a whitelist). I've also done some little experiments to play at other possibilities within Lua like Module:RenderProfile (used to figure out what template on a page are slow, see Module_talk:RenderProfile), Module:CiteConversionTest (searches random pages to find citations that match a particular form, see Module_talk:CiteConversionTest), Module:DiscussionIndex (used to build talk page indices, see Module_talk:DiscussionIndex). While useful to me, none of these is entirely finished. In principle, some of the bot reports (e.g. like Template:Cratstats) could also be replaced with Lua though I'm not sure if the advantages of doing that are worth the effort to do so, and I'm not aware of any examples where this has already been done. Regarding adminbots, it is amazing how routine they seem now. They don't seem to be a big deal anymore, or maybe that is just what our sentient bot overlords want us to think. It was a long time in coming. Arbitration is not as busy as it once was. In the early days (2006-2009) there were dozens of cases per year, and now it has been cut down to about 1 dozen cases a year. In part, I think greater use of WP:AE and community sanctions via WP:ANI has cut the load. I also think the maturing of the community has made things easier. That's not to say that WP:RFAR isn't still a tedious mess, but perhaps it is a less rabid and overwhelmed than it used to be. A while back, I did a simple model on the dynamical evolution of the enwiki community based on editor recruitment and retention patterns. Subject to some possibly dubious assumptions, I ended up estimating that the enwiki editor community would stablize at about 80-90% of current. Not very convincing because it is hard to predict the future, but at least a little bit comforting that perhaps we aren't headed for a cataclysm. In terms of where the biggest potential benefits for the community are, my personal feeling is that we need to improve editor recruitment and the conversion of people who edit once or twice into active editors. I'm not sure what new analytics would be useful there, though a variety of studies have already been done (e.g. meta:Research:Projects). Nor is it obvious what changes would have a big impact. My personal pet peeve at the moment is that we probably show too many captchas. Every new user and anon gets a captcha to solve every time they add a new url to a page. My personal feeling is that we need an automated way to segregate good urls (e.g. NYTimes, CNN, etc.) from spam urls so that we can automatically accept the good stuff without annoying productive users. Not to mention that the captchas we do show are pretty simple to solve by automated means, and hence probably don't eliminate a lot of spam to begin with. Eh, just one thing I have been thinking about lately. Another area where we are perhaps a bit lacking is having good tools to automatically call attention to edit wars or articles that are suddenly seeing a burst of attention. Personally, I tend to find the "new and important" articles through ITN or Google News, but there are perhaps better strategies. It amazes me when a breaking news story has a wiki page linked from the top of Google News and yet hardly anyone here is actually working on it. Though maybe that speaks more to the editor community than to the technical tools. Dragons flight (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Pytanie Czy to na mojej stronie dyskusji to wandalizm (User talk:Devwebtel)? Ten gość to napisał (bez tego First warning) na jednej stronie, bot to wyrewertował, on wyrewertował bota, ja wyrewertowałem jego rewert i on napisał mi to na dyskusji). To zwykły wandalizm, który mogę skasowac czy co? Devwebtel (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC) re Hello! Hey, good to hear from you! I've not been too active these days due to other obligations in life. But still got a few quality improvement projects here and there on articles I'd like to get improved in quality further. Hope you and your family are doing well, — Cirt (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Hello, how can I raise the archiving time? Hello, how can I raise the archiving time?Just raise this entry "algo = old(30d)" or how?--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Yes, that's right - replace the "30" with a larger number. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC) @Lexikon-Duff: New signature after I messed up the "ping" -- John of Reading (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Hi, thx.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)