User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Senior Editor II

Edit count tool?

I have noticed that the edit count tool at https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/ seems not to be working. Is it offline for maintenance, has it been dropped, or is something else going on? Just curious. --Pereru (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The tool has been decommissioned. You can find its replacement at https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php —cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 14:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK. But I noticed that I can't see any monthly stats. Maybe this part is still being worked on? --Pereru (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you give me a link?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure... http://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Pereru&project=en.wiktionary (I have just noticed in the FAQ that the user has to "opt in" for en.wiktionary. Is that maybe the reason? And how does a user "opt in"?) --Pereru (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll advocate a bit. :) You need to create an opt-in file EditCounterOptIn.js under your user page (content of the file doesn't matter), so for you it would be User:Pereru/EditCounterOptIn.js. Anyway, adding that description into the FAQ would be a good thing. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

All right, I've already done that, and now it works (see here). But I usually work at en.wiktionary, so I would like to see my edit count there; and this still does not work (i.e., I can't see monthly stats; see here), despite the fact that I have created a similar .js file under my user name at wiktionary (wikt:User:Pereru/EditCounterOptIn.js). Am I doing something wrong? --Pereru (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like something is wrong with supercount's handling of en.wiktionary stats data, as there's no pie chart and a runtime error is displayed:

Notice: Undefined offset: 90 in /data/project/supercount/public_html/index.php on line 255 .

— Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Fixed It was missing namespace data. I have fixed the error.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Small suggestion for the supercount

Hello there! New supercount stats looks great and works super fast! Thumbs up, great job!

Here's just a small suggestion – having a color-coded legend on the "Monthly Stats" tab as well would be really useful. Of course, there aren't too many breakdown categories so their colors can be easily remembered, but having a legend can't hurt. Hope you agree.

As an addition to the long-term plans, how about maybe including what's currently available through en.wikichecker.com (takes some time to load)? Having that as well would be awesome! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, on the pie chart there's no percentage value displayed for "Others". Perhaps just a small bug. Also, on "Top Edited Pages" using en dashes instead of double hyphens would be a nice touch. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The other percentages are now available.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Now the en dashes on "Top Edited Pages", please. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you've replaced the double hyphens, but could you please use en dashes instead of em dashes? That way it would be inline with the MOS:DASH. Thank you in advance! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done all.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Any chances, please, for making the legend on the "Monthly Stats" tab more compact? Reducing the cells padding and making the font a bit smaller should do the trick. Oh, and we still have em dashes instead of en dashes. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, it's good to have the legend but it's somewhat oversized at the moment.--Wolbo (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Supercount (pros and cons)

Hi! Many thanks for delivering a montly edit stats tool. It basically does the same thing as X!, and it works. Which is great. Some more comments:

Pros: It's fast! It's got a clean interface. A tabbed interface makes for more options, and an FAQ is great.

Could be better: I'd prefer both the pie and the months etc on the same page. It'd make for a quicker reading and comparison. A little minus as for now.

Could be better: Monthly numbers presentation. X! had a common dropdown of all the month's stats. Thus even "thin" stats could be shown. A somewhat bigger minus.

Could be better: X! presented percent figures, which would be great as a basic analysis tool. To know you edit 50 percent, or 60 or 70, in the main namespace would be great. Could this be developed? I'd very much appreciate it.

Best of wishes. (svwp editor since 2008) --Paracel63 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm also missing the percentages dropdown for each month; is that what you mean by "edit analysis" under the list of things to come? Am a bit puzzled by the discussion above of needing to opt in again, but perhaps those apply if one checks from another language version of Wikipedia or other than via the edit count link. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

  It's a work in progress. I'm going through feedback one at a time. To settle one matter, one does not need to optin again, if already opted in.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Fix the "# of articles edited"....I saw it to be wildly off (about 15x higher than actual)
• Bring back the list of types of edits. Everyting that isn't big enought to have it's own section on the pie chart used to be there; not it isn't anywhere.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The second item has been amended. Look at Q5 in the FAQ to find out how to view all percentages.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Rather than toggling the display back and forth, why not just leave the items under "other" always displayed (perhaps indented under the "other" caption). And then highlight the whole "other" block when you hover over the "other" slice. Rwessel (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. It's good progress that an option now exists to see all namespaces but it's not really intuitive and has some usability issues. The readability of the complete list would be much improved if the three columns (namespace, edits, percentage) are aligned.--Wolbo (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot add it to the graph itself as the js library powering the graph is what groups the <1% namespace edits together in the others section. I'll have to look at ways to modify it. I can however align the complete list.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User Analysis Feedback

Many thanks for creating a tool that works quickly and is reliable. Just a couple of requests:

• A little extra whitespace between the year/month and number of edits in the monthly chart, for readability at a glance. Example:
  • 2014/03 116
  • 2014/03   116
• An entry on the monthly chart for every month even when no edits were made. A count of zero edits in a particular month could be highlighted by making the year/month grey to make up for the lack of a "bar". Example:
  • 2013/09   2 ■■
  • 2013/10   0
  • 2013/11   4 ■■■■

-=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 18:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please also see another layout proposal above. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your bot

Your bot keeps tagging the articles for NowPublic and Examiner.com for using blacklisted links. These were whitelisted for the respective article. I don't know what you need to do on your end to keep your bot from repeatedly putting a tag that isn't needed on the articles, but it needs to stop. It is becoming a nuisance. What you put up and I reverted did not work. Your bot tagged it after you removed my edits. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If the bot is tagging them, they are not whitelisted. The bot follows the whitelist. In any event, the tag has been set to suppress itself. Leaving the tag in place but made invisible will make the bot stop. It will quietly update the tags without changing the visibility of the tag.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

PS: To verify that this is not a bot bug, I have attempted to add them to my sandbox and was stopped by the filter.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• It wasn't my imagination: [1]. It showed up as soon as you removed my edit the first time. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  Of course not. The links are blacklisted. That's why the bot is tagging them. Try adding the links somewhere.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I know they are blacklisted. I've discussed at the blacklist page why they should stay blacklisted. I clearly know they are blacklisted sites or I'd have never mentioned whitelisting now would I? So why would I try adding them anywhere? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  If you know they are blacklisted, then you know the bot is doing its job by pointing it out. So, by setting the invisible parameter on the tag to true, it's presence can be masked, and the bot will leave it alone.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Bot malfunction

So, CyberBot warned me for inappropriate edits to a deletion discussion. That warning was itself inappropriate, because my edits were necessary. I had to revert my own closure [2] because I failed to take into account that some of the sources cited weren't about the article's topic. My bad. Anyway, would it be possible to program the bot to not warn people reverting their own edits? ChromaNebula (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really. I don't see how. That would require an overcomplicated setup to implement.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

New User Analysis Tool

Thanks for the new User Analysis Tool it looks pretty cool! I suggest to quit que legend at the Monthly Chart as you can see what the colour means when you put the mouse over the bars. Thank you! --AMPERIO (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd just make it more compact, by reducing the cells padding and making the font a bit smaller. Right now it somehow visually dominates over the page. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Warning me for reverting my own improper closure of a discussion! ChromaNebula (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I did no such thing. But I'll still take the trout. I'm hungry.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit Count Suggestions

The new tool is much faster than the old, and has a clean user interface. One bug and some suggestions follow:

Monthly Namespace Edit Breakdown bug

When I view my monthly edit counts using Chrome 33.0 under Windows Vista, the monthly stats dates and counts are double-spaced compared to the bars. My last edit month therefore shows as 2011/02. It works fine on Firefox. Under Explorer 9.0.25 it runs very, very slowly. The dates are aligned with the bars. But the tabbed section are all visible, laid out vertically, and the font for the dates is really ugly: very heavy bolding with the left of the first character not visible. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have replicated the alignment bug, however it is very likely the formatting and the JS are not compatible with IE 9. Using IE 11, the font and tabs look fine.

I don't know how many people use IE 9. A shrinking number, presumably. It works - just looks ugly. The Chrome bug is obviously more important. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have the same issue with the months stats using chrome. My overview stops at 2010/06 while FF shows it completely. Also the labels do not vertically align properly with the bars using Chrome.--Wolbo (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Few suggestions. 1) Unbold the date, it currently has too much visual weight, 2) Rename the numerical format yyyy/mm (2014/3) to yyyy/mmm (2014/mar) as this is more intuitive to scan, 3) Move the edit numbers from the column between the date and the bars to the top of the bars (left side) as this unclutters the left side with all the numbers.--Wolbo (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions above, with some further improvements. I'll try to illustrate the alignments with an example:

2010 January     25 ||||||||||||||

2010 March      146 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2011 May          9 |||||

2012 February  1200 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Hope it makes sense. Of course, bars aren't to scale. :) That way it would be super readable. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Help on tab suppression

It would be useful if the FAQ included a description of how to opt in / opt out of statistics. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The instructions are already written into the tool when they are not opted in or opted out. Do you still want them in the FAQ?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 17:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be useful. I opted in years ago. I might like to opt out of "Top Edited Pages", but do not know how. I think that used not to be an option if you wanted to see monthly stats. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it be an option to add the opt-in / opt out selection for the detailed statistics as a checkbox in the user 'Preferences' section? Seems a logical place to put it. In the FAQ you state "To opt in to this wiki, simply create User:xxxx/EditCounterOptIn.js." but I would argue that for many editors this is not simple at all, certainly not without further instructions. I'm convinced that there are lots of editors, even experienced ones, who have never created js scripts and would not know how to do so but would still like to opt-in to have access to their detailed editing statistics.--Wolbo (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not a doable option at current. But I do agree with you. It is a logical place to put it. As for creating the page, all you have to do is some text to it, and you're opted in. I can amend it to say, create the page with random text to opt in. That is all you need to do. I can even have it link it to the proper location make it easier.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Pie chart details

The pie chart seems to only show wedges for namespaces with 2% or greater edits. It would be useful if there were some way to see the statistics for namespaces with fewer than 2% of the edits. They do not have to be shown in the pie chart, but somewhere would be useful. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yea sure.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 17:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion made. Perhaps it could be as easy as adding a table below the piechart on the 'Overview' tab with the columns namespaces, total edits and percentage.--Wolbo (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Explained in question 5 in FAQ.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that and for the FAQ improvement. Looks good to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Monthly Namespace Edit Breakdown

It is not easy to see counts and percentages in the bar chart. Individual namespace counts do show when the cursor is hovered over a region of a bar, but for someone like me with poor vision and coordination it is difficult to position on the narrow divisions of a bar. Is there a way to somewhere display a box with a list of namespace counts and percents for a given month? That way they could be viewed at a glance without having to maneuver the mouse around and do mental arithmetic for the percents. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

How about a list view tab? When you go to the monthly breakdown, you can choose to view the bar chart and a list view.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 17:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That would work, I think. Just some easy way to see the namespace breakdown, counts and percents, for a month. I don't know why I find them interesting, but I do. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Same here. Percentages makes for basic analysis of what you do at the various Wikimedia projects, and it makes it easy spotting trends in your own behaviour. I'd really like a percentage + namespaces breakdown per month. See below. If a list view will fix this, I'm all for it. --Paracel63 (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I must agree. It makes comparing between months easier. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

One more vote for including monthly counts and percentages. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Table tab has been added, but could use a little neatening. Should be readable though.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Though, there is an issue with the tables on "Monthly Tables" tab – many edits are missing, and it seems like edits to the "Main" namespace aren't displayed at all. Also, it would be very good to sort the breakdowns by the percentages in descending order, and to make the tables more compact by reducing the cells padding. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thousands separator

Hey CP, I'm loving the new edit counter, much faster than the previous one. I'd suggest one minor fix: if possible, adding thousands separators to the edit count would increase readability (there are bots with millions of edits). Cheers,--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I see its been done in the overview, Is it possible you could do the same in the piechart.Blethering Scot 20:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Any chances, please, for the thousands separators in monthly breakdowns and associated tooltips? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Applying it onto the barchart may be more difficult. I'll look into it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Treemap as an alternative to pie chart

It would be interesting to see one's edits in the form of a treemap that fills up the whole screen. Later on, the treemap can display for example, the number of edits to the most edited articles as compared with all other edits made, and see the percentage as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 Added to todo list—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Top Most Edited

I'd like suggest an option of having more than just the top 10 for the Main list (at least 20, maybe as much as 50). Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Added to todo list—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Small other suggestion

Thanks for this new tool. I just wonder if it is possible to add an option (checkbox or other) in the monthly stats tab to show empty months (without contributions) transforming it into a kind of timeline (the same way as it was on X!)? --Sacamol (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That was actually a bug, which has been  Fixed—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it :) --Sacamol (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions to the page

Is there any way that you could put some sort of neutral background on the site, as it contains a lot of white space when compared to other sites, and it contrasts sharply to the yellow in the chart. On the chart colors, would it be possible to remove the shades of yellow, as it might not be a bad idea to restore some of the colors from the other page. Otherwise, it all looks great, so thanks for the update! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done How's that?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Unique Pages Edited

Hello Cyberpower678. You quite possibly know this already, but the "Unique Pages Edited" feature of the new edit counter isn't working properly. It confuses unique pages edited with live edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain further. For me my Live edits shows as 47,577 and my unique pages are 28,221.Blethering Scot 12:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have the same problem: the Pages figure is the same as that for Live Edits. Live edits looks correct but pages is about 3 times too high in my case (I used the old tool just a couple of days ago). I quickly sampled a handful of editors and found Pages=Live Edits for all users that aren't opted in for monthly stats; all the opted-in ones had Pages<Live Edits and looking plausible. NebY (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I'm opted into monthly stats, and "Unique Pages Edited" seems to be showing a correct number for my account. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same error. I'm not opted in and "Unique Pages Edited" is wrong – showing the same value as "Live edits". Mojoworker (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I be your friend?

Hello, I would love to be your friend. Can we be friends? XDraggon (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit counter

Hi Cyberpower678, I really like the looks of the new edit counter tool. Thanks! -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

user stats

It is great to see the new user stats! One problem: the monthly edits start in 2005 and end in 2009 for me. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, actually the dates are not aligned with the bars. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a fairly common problem. Happens on current versions of Chrome. Rwessel (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm using IE 11, which has the problem. Firefox is OK, though. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

One more comment about edit counts...it used to be that there was a number of total edits and then a bar that broke down your edits according to the space (article, talk, user, etc.). Now, there is a pie chart that has a breakdown but I don't see the total number anywhere. I should say that I last looked at this yesterday and I know it's undergoing modification so maybe this has already been changed. It's just nice to see whether my total monthly edit count is going up or down. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, same here. The monthly stats stop around 2012 for me. Great job on the toll BTW! Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Same error happens for me, edit Monthly chart ends in 2012, the Monthly Tables continue up to the present day however.Blethering Scot 22:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's a known bug. The dates are not aligned. If you use Firefox for the time being, you can see it correctly formatted. Next to the bolded months is a total edit count for that month. There is also a table view that can show you your total edit counts.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit counter downgraded?

No offense, but the graphics of the new edit counter are the pits. Almost looks like an illustration in a child's coloring book. Esp the bar graphs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

?????? They're the exact same colors as in the old edit counter! Did you hate the old edit counter colors too? Was the background too barfy for you?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The colors are the same but the graphics were much better, esp the way the compound bar graphs were laid out. Just wondering why time and effort was spent to fix something that wasn't broke only to have it look like play room graphics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The tool was broken in many ways. It was no longer worth fixing. So I rewrote it. I can add an option to allow for the old design to be used, if you like.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be great. Didn't mean to sound ungreatful and I do appreciate the effort of those who work to make wikipedia better. All the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What was broken about it was the core itself. So I rewrote it to be more efficient in operating correctly. There's currently so much to do on that tool, if you look at the suggestions above, so it might take some time before I can implement the old design.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I also noticed you have a lot of categories (i.e.template, template/talk, book, etc all lumped together under 'other'. I'm hoping you can combine the efficiency of the new version with the superior graphics of the old version and include all the categories. Thanks again for your efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Click on a wedge.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(Click) Wow, like magic! . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for the User Analysis Tool :D Newyorkadam (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Thank you.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User Analysis tool Subpage

Just a suggestion, do you think it might just be worth whilst creating a subpage for the User Analysis tool for suggestions and comments. Would mean your personal talk page will not always be littered with comments and suggestions and would mean it has a dedicated page.Blethering Scot 00:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

But then I can't identify anybody. A nobody else can comment. My talk page is fine, and it does clean itself up.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Course everyone can comment and be identified you just set up a dedicated sub talk page for the edit counter. That's want most big tools do. You link from the tool and you can have a message at the top of your main page to. It also means users can easily find old discussion relevant to the tool in the archive for the subpage meaning long term it's far better. Say if I want to know something that's probably been asked before. I would search through your talk page archive wouldn't find it as your talk page archives will have mostly irrelevant stuff to what I'm looking for. Blethering Scot 00:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what the FAQ is for.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It really isn't at all. An FAQ simply cannot cover everything ever discussed and an FAQ is simply only basic points. This is bad practice but it's up to you. Blethering Scot 09:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Counter bug?

Hi, I just checked this link and it says:

• Unique Pages Edited: 116,560
• Live edits: 116,560

Tha's impossible. The user edited many pages twice or more. I hope this helps. —  Ark25  (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be an already known issue, please see the section above. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Its weird it's not affecting all users. My edits are correct. Blethering Scot 11:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's beautifully consistent. It only affects users who aren't opted-in and it affects every one of them that I've checked. NebY (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's wildly off for me. It says I've edited over 40,000 different articles. Actual is somewhere around 3,000. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you opted in. Blethering Scot 14:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Grand! Just FYI, it's showing a figure for Unique Pages Edited that's a bit over 10% higher than the old tool showed - but I've no particular reason to think the old tool was correct. NebY (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Scratch that. I just ran a crude Excel check (easy enough with my few contributions) and confirmed the new figure. Bravo! The old tool was indeed broken. NebY (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just checked it ......works good now. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Counter tool opt-in

If I opt-in by creating User:Ezhiki/EditCounterOptIn.js, what it is exactly I am opting in for? What features am I missing if I don't opt-in? Can't find that information anywhere; a pointer would be appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 25, 2014; 20:20 (UTC)

After that, you're able to see monthly breakdowns on the "Monthly Stats" tab. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, but I can already see them? Is that because my opt-in was carried over from the previous version of the tool, even though I don't have anything on my EditCounterOptIn.js page?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 26, 2014; 13:10 (UTC)

Users opted in to the old tool are automatically opted in to the new tool. BTW, you are opted in at meta:User:Ezhiki/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js which is a global optin.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, totally forgot about that one. Thanks for refreshing my memory!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 26, 2014; 15:32 (UTC)

User:Cyberbot I/Current AfD's and edit counter questions

The bot seems to be having a bit of trouble determining which AfDs are actually still open. Not sure if you know what's happening, but no big deal. Cheers, ansh666 00:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, your edit counter's monthly breakdown tables don't include mainspace edits. Is this intended or an oversight? ansh666 06:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Appear to both be bugs.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about your new edit count tool

In my report, on the Overview, it says that I am in User groups: rollbacker, templateeditor, *, user, autoconfirmed

I understand rollbacker, templateeditor, and autoconfirmed – but what are user groups "*" and "user"?

Would it be possible to Wikilink to the main pages about those user groups, e.g., Wikipedia:Template editor for "templateeditor"? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC) ("one of the few, the proud, the 184 template editors")

Every wiki has its own set of rights. So I would be against it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So, let me repeat my question: What are user groups * and user (on English Wikipedia)? Do you know? How can I find the answer? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See Special:ListGroupRights. * are the group of rights given to everyone who edits (IPs and accounts), user are the group of rights given to all accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Although, if you look at an IP on the edit counter, * and user won't show up. ansh666 01:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

So, from the helpful link to Special:ListGroupRights I see that user links to Wikipedia:Why create an account?, which implies that it is a named account that has been created. And I assume that (all) is an alias for * – which includes all editors and readers including IPs. I just found Wikipedia:User access levels also answers the question and specifically mentions the '*' group. I'm not sure that I see the value in listing a group that everyone is a member of in this report. It just confuses people. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really. It is after all a user group. When I go to a user page, say mine, I see "User talk:Cyberpower678: Difference between revisions [exists] [accountcreator,reviewer,rollbacker,templateeditor,*,user,autoconfirmed] [12710 edits] [created: 2011-06-26]"—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit Counter

I know you're working on this, so maybe this is a result of how far along your revisions are, but:

On Wikimedia, I just get an announcement about the replacement.

On en.wikipedia, on the monthly stats, a random selection of months (2007-2011) appears. I'd guess it skips months with no edits, but one of these appears. Then it displays 2011/9 through 2012/8, but nothing since.

And, if I opted in for the old tool am I automatically opted in for the old one. Lineagegeek (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And I should add, I use Google Chrome 33.0.1750.154 m --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Appears to be a little difference with the opt ins. Opting into the old one on en.wikipedia let be see the stats on wikimedia. Hoever, now that I'm globally opted in, I see that a couple of months ago when I did a lot of humdrum edits (4000+ in the month) no number appears when I hover the mouse over the bar graph. Also the bars don't align with the month labels. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm a long term user, and my monthly stats only show from Dec 2001 to 2008, not to present. Nice to see the new site! Berek (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a known bug. Use Firefox for the time being. Also, yes, you are automatically opted in to this tool if you were opted in to the old one.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hope this bug gets top priority. I like the tool and the potential it has but this bug prevents it from being useful for a significant group of users.--Wolbo (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

supercount

Hi Cyberpower678! I saw that supercount loads some JS and CSS from external servers (bootstrapcdn.com, googleapis.com, cloudflare.com) which unveils the data of the users accessing your tool to those third-party servers. It would be great if you could use your own copy of the JS and CSS files, or if you use toollabs:static instead, a tool hosting common JS and CSS files on Labs. An other feature request: Could you auto-fill the input fields with the given arguments? For example, if I use the link toollabs:supercount/?project=de.wikipedia, the project input field should contain de.wikipedia. Thanks in advance! --Ireas ^ask! 16:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about the external .css and .js files. Other than that (and the suggestion above about viewing namespaces with less than 2%), it looks pretty good. Mojoworker (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Great!

Thousand thanks, also for respecting privacy concerns of German WP users.

I am entirely happy now; greetings --PerfektesChaos (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

+1 @ PerfektesChaos -- thanks! --Ireas ^ask! 15:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Council of Florence

It's not clear without a bit more explanation what you think is wrong with the link http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00366073/ Would you mind interpreting the bot on the talkpage there? Sparafucil (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The bot doesn't decide what links are bad. See why it was added to the spam blacklist. This is the wrong place to discuss that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Monthly tables doesn't show the main space

Probably because it's the only name space without a translation to Hebrew (as seen in the pie chart section).

for e.g: https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Neukoln&project=he.wikipedia --> monthly stats --> monthly tables.

btw, the translation needs to be "מרחב הערכים". Neukoln (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

There's an unknown bug in the software generating the tables. I'm still looking for it. Translations will come out as the tool approaches completion, it will be an open contribution translation interface.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks, Neukoln (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

User Analysis/Supercount tool

Cyberpower678, I can't seem to get the total edits to display for those categories that have been grouped under "Other". The FAQ says "Click on any wedge to view a complete list. Click on the same wedge to hide it." When I hover over a wedge it gets longer and the "Others" text to the right of the graph turns bold and the colored bullet grows larger; when I click on the wedge, all that happens is that the wedge shortens back to normal (the bullet and "Other" stay larger/bold). At no time do the actual categories grouped under Other appear (User, Portal, etc., in my case), nor their actual numbers and percentages.

I'd frankly prefer it if the categories and their numbers always appeared grouped under "Others" line on the right. There's no reason I can see that I should have to mouse over a narrow wedge and click in order to see data that used to be always be listed as a matter of course.

Right now, this and (even more importantly) the bug that prevents the most recent half of the monthly totals from appearing are what's keeping this from being truly useful. I'm using Safari 5.1.10, if that helps diagnose the issue. Thanks for all your work in recreating and reimagining the tool. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't duplicate the pie chart issue you are having. But I'm working on putting them all on one spot.Cyberpower | Penny for your thoughts? 12:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ole Hanson

Hey, I just noticed that your bot has rung up a purported blacklisted link on Ole Hanson. The link is fine, please clean up the automated mess. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The link has been blacklisted. You'll need to request whitelisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. In the meantime, you can hide the tag by setting its invisible parameter to true.—Cyberpower (竜龙) 12:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Some suggestions about the new supercount tool

I have a few suggestions for improvisation of the new supercount tool. They are as follows:

1. Reducing the font size for Monthly Namespace Edit Breakdown should be better, moreso for users with greater number of edits. I would also insist on reversing the order of months and to start it with the most recent month. This is because after a certain number rows for no. of months, the recent months do not show.
2. For the Monthly Namespace Edit Breakdown, the layout for Monthly Tables could be better. I would suggest adding a series of columns for each month with the first two columns containing what is given as legend in the Namespaces tab.

Diptanshu^Talk 13:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User Analysis tool.

• 1.Bug. Monthly tables don't display edits made to Main (tested FireFox and GoogleChrome). Also have to frankly admit that monthly tables in comparison to way of old tool makes comparisons let's say a bit less user friendly...
  

   Fixed—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it; many thanx! Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• 2.Bug? Monthly chart: if bar of monthly edits longer than dedicated screen space, hovering mouse over visible edits other than the ones made to Main does not show edit count. Screen needs to be scrolled right in order to accomplish this (FF and GC).
  EDIT-update, March 27: Now that my bar for the present month has extended farther to ther right (resized?), I see that the problem is not about edits "other than the ones made to Main" space but about the x name-space edits part of the bar that is a. either "cut" (before scrolling to the right) or b. even if not cut, very close to the right end of the screen in which case the popup bubble is also cut becoming more or less useless without/before scrolling (i.e. the bubble does not change placement/orientation).

   Fixed I moved the legend to a different tab. Graph should be moved to the left.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it; many thanx! Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• 3.Bug. Date problem (GC).

  ????—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

See below (User:Diannaa). I was just reporting, confirming the Chrome bug's existence. Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed at long last.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• 4.Feature. Entering username/project form, project field should have a defalt value (probaly en.wikipedia) or something or be easier to use without necessarily having to type in. Also the present grey pseudodefault (en.wikipedia) can be somewhat misleading.
• 5..ON/OFF? The tool/page still seems to be in operation only when it wants to. I.e. most of the time, does not respond, it seems down, redirects to error page. Wasn't replacing the old one supposed to fix this?

  You'll need to provide more information. The exact time and date would help in UTC so I can isolate the issues.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Never happened again since; could have been something on my part. So please disregard. Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• 6.Thanksgiving. Even if nothing were to be fixed I couldn't complain cause I only ask while you do the work, etc.... Thanks.
• 7.P.S. If I've listed something as a bug or whatever and it really isn't one and/or it's instead something on my side and/or something I did wrong, my apologies. Thanatos|talk|contributions 23:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to confirm that #1 above also doesn't work for me. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm #1 as well. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

They're  Fixed—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• 8. The dates on the monthly chart are out of whack. The bar graph looks like it has the right data, but the dates are not right. The last date on my chart is incorrectly shown as December 2011, for example. Thank you for creating the tool. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm, just checked your stats report, and it looks fine to me? Dates I can see on that monthly breakdown (both for charts and tables) go from October 2009 to March 2014. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa probably surfs using Chrome while you Dsimic using some other browser. It's probably the No.3 bug above; see 4.1. Thanatos|talk|contributions 09:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the error occurs while using Google Chrome. The same graph displays properly in Firefox. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed at long last.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent ! --Wolbo (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• 9. The tool has problems showing edits on wikisource-projects. The pie chart is unavailable. --Pxos (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  Without a link, I have no idea what you are talking about. It works for me.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't understand Finnish: [3]. --Pxos (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Blacklisted-links

Where weren't you seeing the categories? It seemed fine to me. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't seeing them anywhere. I fail to see how removing categories keeps them in categories.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 03:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A recent update to MediaWiki adds all pages that contain blacklisted links to Category:Pages containing blacklisted links regardless of any templates present on the page. Can you name a specific page where the category was supposed to be but wasn't, so that I can investigate it? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Does it display as a hidden cat. Blethering Scot 09:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it appears to display normally. (Just add a blacklisted link to a page and hit Show preview and you should see it.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Having not had a response to this, I will shortly change the template back. If you still see categories missing then, can you link me to one of the pages so I can take a look rather than re-enabling it in the template? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I see it. I'm changing it to something else.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And of course, just as this happens, the change to MediaWiki got reverted. Sigh. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Then why did they add it to begin with?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It was removed because it caused really bad performance issues. I'm looking to see whether or not it would be possible to fix. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There are 64 million links in the database, I would imagine not. I already tried something faster for spambot.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

COMIC SAAAANNNSSSSSSS!

Happy April Fools' Day!

By the way, the bot's AfD transclusion "comment" makes it so that the header for the next AfD's title is also in the dreaded font. ansh666 04:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you too, and what? Can you provide a link?Cyberpower ^{How can I help?} 12:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's gone now, but it should be in the log history somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up. ansh666 19:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That's odd, I couldn't find it. Maybe it was someone else who changed the font... ansh666 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Monthly edit counts

Hm, why do we no longer have monthly edit counts on the "Monthly Stats" → "Monthly Chart" breakdown? That's pretty much essential info, if you agree. By the way, tested that in latest versions of Firefox and Google Chrome, and none of them displays these counts. Additionally, vertical alignment of the months names (YYYY/MM) is broken in Chrome, they don't line up with the bars.

Hope this can be fixed soon. Thank you! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to fix it all day, and broke it a bit more.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 04:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
thanks for the new style in User Analysis for…!
Questions to "Monthly Stats" → "Monthly Chart":

1. Why do we no longer have a (sum) total to see this clearly in each line and at only a glance per line?
2. Why are there only a few years/months shown in the "Internet explorer" instead of a full listing in "Mozilla firefox"?

I hope that you understand my probably simple English. Please answer in the same way!
--TOMM (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read the yellow box. It's a bug.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There are two issues here with the Monthly Chart: one is that the months are not aligned with their bar graphs (except, apparently, in Firefox) with the last half cut off, and the other is that the page no longer gives the monthly totals along with the month name and (incorrectly aligned) bars. Are these both known bugs, or just the former, which has been a problem since the introduction?

I'm not sure whether the date text is generated as a separate column/table from the bars, or in a single unit, but whichever it is, have you tried the other? The suggestion that we change browsers solely in order to get this page to work is a non-starter, frankly; I hope you find someone to help you craft a solution. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that I did not understand all the info of the above answer, but a few things have become a little clearer! Thanks for the answers!
--TOMM (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Fixed—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Can we have some spacing between the edit counts and associated bars, please? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm afraid there isn't much difference? In other words, they're still very close. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for correction of all these!
--TOMM (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot II

Fixes to make?

1. Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page – these messages aren't about Wikipedia's main page so isn't this header a bit misleading?
2. Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links ... – presumably 'page' is a placeholder for the name of the page where the external link has been found. Shouldn't that be fixed?
3. ... you may request the regex be removed ... – isn't regex a term of art that will be meaningless to most editors?
4. Shouldn't the talkpage report list why a site was black listed? Or, if that isn't possible, where an interested reader can go to learn the reason?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate blacklist

Interstate 15 (Utah) was blacklisted because of this link http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/i-15-core-utah-county/. Clearly an error, most likely because of a partial text string match "broadtraffic". Dave (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see the investigation is ongoing... So it may get removed from the blacklist or not... I'll wait and see how that turns out. Dave (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Am I your friend?

In answer to your question: If you are not an actual human, no, you are not my friend. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(Well, that was easy and unambiguous. Not particularly useful to anybody - least of all you - but nevertheless, easy and unambiguous.)

What the ... is this guy on about?!?!

Your bot's actions and postings at https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_Australian_Army_generals&diff=602578774&oldid=602243707 and https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Australian_Army_generals&diff=602578783&oldid=594587593 are FAR too vague to be useful. Please review the SPAM your bot is producing and think about the person who has to interpret it. It means nothing useful or informative to me, so, until such time as it actually says something useful and informative, I have, and will, revert it.

(Believe-it-or-not, in good faith) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There is documentation everywhere, with links. Read it. Follow it. Don't revert it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Sunshine, "Not my problem." It's not MY responsibility to (quote): "Read it" or "Follow it", because you're either are too lazy or too self important. Until such time as you ADEQUATELY explain things, I see NO reason why I'm not justified in reverting. And until such time as you DO give an adequate response, I will. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• First off, it's my talk page, I can choose to revert what I want. Second, not starting a discussion civilly means I will not pursue a discussion with you until you change your attitude. Third, saying something is not helpful and asking me to change it is not helpful.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Whoa whoa whoa. Let's all hold on a moment here. Pdfpdf, cyberpower has every right to remove any thread from his talk page, you should know that. Cyberpower, suggesting that this is clear trolling a personal attack, Pdfpdf does not agree that there is clarity in your bots message - it's technical and I can understand that. Let's both take a moment and not let this get further out of hand. Worm^TT(talk) 15:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I apologize for calling this trolling.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you cyberpower. Pdfpdf, could I ask that you leave the messages alone until tomorrow? I'm just about to log off, but I'll be able to explain better in the morning. Cyberpower, looking at the bot message, there are definitely improvements that can be made, would you be willing to update the text to be less technical if I give you a hand with that? Worm^TT(talk) 15:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm always willing to improve the bot messages, but it always helps to know what to improve.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I can help slightly by giving my first-time experience of figuring out why there was blacklisting? In the alert, clicking "show" was fairly obvious; it took me a bit longer to realise that clicking "local" might be useful; there I eventually dared to click on the link at the end of "All additions to this blacklist MUST also be logged here"; that didn't start an automatic process (phew) and did take me to a log where I could see the specific blacklisting; a few rows above that I found a username and link; the link did take me to a discussion of that batch of sites and whether they should be blacklisted; I passed that link to Pdfpdf and Pdfpdf thanked me. Obviously a lot of that chain is out of your control but I wonder if the alert might include a link straight to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log? NebY (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, been otherwise occupied diverted.

First off, it's my talk page, I can choose to revert what I want. - Undisputed.

Doing so is neither useful nor communicative. But I must admit, undisputed. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Second, ... - Ah ha. I see no point in telling you why I disagree - I can't see how it will achieve anything. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Third, ... - Can't see anything productive likely to emerge out of that, either ... Pdfpdf (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Pdfpdf, cyberpower has every right to remove any thread from his talk page, you should know that. - Oh yes - he has. Oh yes - I DO know that. (However, as you subsequently point out/imply, that's a side issue ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for calling this trolling. - Thank you. Appreciated & accepted. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(Just so it doesn't get lost) Thank you. Appreciated & accepted.

Pdfpdf, could I ask that you leave the messages alone until tomorrow? - Sure. No problem. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

but it always helps to know what to improve - Fair comment! Happy to help if I can. (I don't profess to know everything-about-everything, but I have NO problem with telling you what confuses me!!) Pdfpdf (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Improving bot messages

Morning all. Thank you both for your patience, and also NebY for that feedback. As I see it there are two messages that we're looking at here, the talk page message:

== Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page ==

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist|request page for whitelisting]].
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist|blacklist request page]].
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the [[meta:Talk:Spam Blacklist|request page on meta]].
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

'''Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:'''

*http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature1616/
*:''Triggered by <code>\barmy-technology\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''
*http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature1616/feature1616-5.html
*:''Triggered by <code>\barmy-technology\.com\b</code> on the local blacklist''

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact [[User:Cyberpower678]] and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;font-family:Neuropol">cyberbot II</span>]] [[User talk:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:arnprior">Notify</sup>]]<sub style="margin-left:-6.1ex;color:green;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 13:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And the article message:

Now, I'm more concerned with the former, the latter would do well to have a link to the talk page to discuss. A link through to bot's discussion would be good.

So, issues with the talk page comment:

• Header says "Main Page" - they're not on the Main Page, they're on the article. Can you change that to state the article name, perhaps linked so it's easily accessible?
• Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.

  The links aren't necessarily "external links" per WP:EL. The sentence is also doesn't scan and there are a couple of spelling mistakes. Perhaps Cyberbot II has detected links on [PAGE NAME] which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global

• I'd drop the "This doesn't necessarily" bit, partially because of the spelling, partially because it's redundant.
• If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.

  I'd alter that to If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. Which is much shorter and easier to understand. I'd then drop the explanations of how long things take or how to do it, as they should be on the linked page.

  For the final part, I'd put Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk

It would also be better to tailor the message to local, global or both based on the links that have been hit - otherwise there is too much information. Worm^TT(talk) 10:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

roadtraffic-technology.com blacklist

This was added by the bot: Talk:Jiaozhou_Bay_Bridge#Blacklisted_Links_Found_on_the_Main_Page It looks incorrect. Can you whitelist roadtraffic-technology.com ? -- GreenC 16:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see above someone said there is ongoing investigation.. -- GreenC 16:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone else is interested the discussion/investigation is here.[4] -- GreenC 17:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Whitelist request: roadtraffic-technology.com is one of my most useful and authoritative sources. It is cleared as okay by my Mozilla browser, and by my Web of Trust add-on as well as by online URL checkers virustotal.com and trendmicro.com I would like to see roadtraffic-technology.com whitelisted.Stuffed cat (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no control over that.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

\bpower-technology\.com\b

Do you know why power-technology is on the blacklist? Your bot recently tagged Hazelwood Power Station. The link is arguably not in the best point in the article, but is this a mirror site or something? The link has been there since 2009. Yaris678 (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong place to ask. The bot doesn't control the blacklist. The admins here do at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. I've posted there. Maybe this message should make it clearer where to ask questions about the black list. Just a suggestion for your bot. Yaris678 (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Major change to the Monthly Chart

It maybe would look even better with the counts aligned right:

2015/01 2015/02 2015/03 2015/04

123 0 12 1456

██ ▌ ███████████

A bookkeeping convention. Just a thought. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Typo in Supercount Future Plans

Currently, the second point in the section reads:

In some cases, the montly chart segments are too narrow to hover the mouse over.

It should be monthly.

And thanks for the awesome tool :)

--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)