User talk:Amaurea - Knowledge

125:: As to posting in a threaded fashion on mailing lists, it's to do with your mail client. If you use a service like Hotmail or Yahoo, they don't support threads (which is why I switched to Gmail). I know for sure that Gmail uses threads (in which case all emails on a common subject are grouped into one thread). I don't know about POP3 clients like Outlook - I think they support it too. However, if you only joined the list now, then even thread-supporting services won't work, since you wouldn't be getting any digests/feeds from the mailing list. I think your best bet is simply to break the thread structure, since it's already getting too long. 121:

the people out there that there is considerable opposition to this. I think that if, for example, in a straw poll, stable versions wins by a slim majority such as 60%, it may not be implemented (since 40% is too large an opposition). And yes, I fully agree with you in terms of readers and editors. There is so much overlap, and editors must also be respected, not just used as workers who will generate what will then be a closed encyclopedia. A lot of us have come to contribute our time and knowledge here in the hope that not only will Knowledge be free as in free distribution, but will always remain open for anyone to edit.

732:"? When the scrollbars were still in place, they kept the column headers in place even when you were scrolling down to older polls. That way, even when you were looking at a year-old poll, it was immediately visible which column belonged to which party - the column headers were kind of like a frozen row in a spreadsheet. That made use of the table a lot easier, to be honest! Consider this just as feedback from a user. Cheers, -- 1604: 1843: 1755: 1667: 1515: 1286: 1141: 1068: 995: 897: 224: 162: 133: 103: 219: 157: 128: 98: 596: 520: 301:

324 Academy_Award 20011027203113 334 International_Atomic_Time 20010302211735 336 Altruism 20010427002709 337 Ang_Lee 20010930014301 339 Ayn_Rand 20011121112419 340 Alain_Connes 20010225034339 344 Allan_Dwan 20010628145508 349 Economy_of_Algeria 20011031233124 358 Algeria 20010227032841 359 Characters_in_Atlas_Shrugged 20010620225819 362 Technology_in_Atlas_Shrugged

428:

lower (earlier) data from the logarithmic chart. Another alternative would be cummulate the yearly-%-change graph a bit more... eg. use a longer timespan to calculate each point. Because the up/down cyan noise really doesn't give the right impression of what's happening. Very interesting though.

427:

I like the log version better, because 1) unlike the yearly-%-change one, it's cumulative, so it doesn't show the up-then-down noise nearly so much, and 2) it shows the deviation better than the non-logarithmic one. If you used that one, you'd probably have to use "set xmin" and truncate some of the

187:

AEQ quality is far too small to make any significant dent in the overall rate of recruitment of new editors. At present, there are 848 former featured articles, out of a total of 887,508 articles on Knowledge. That is less than 1/1000. If every one of the former featured articles was protected (which

153:

Amaurea - your argument on your talk-page was great! I think you're a very good writer, and your text gets very much to the point, and makes for a very well-supported case against stable versions, argued with a great deal of logic. Magnus Manske, the person who implemented stable versions in the next

448:

I just think the cyan noise is incongruous with the other graph that shows how closely the data fits with the logarithmic fit. The noise gives the wrong initial impression. The only possible reason it's so noisy is because it's displaying too much detail in %-changed data. If you zoomed way in on

300:

20011011201847 12 Anarchism 20011212041218 25 Autism 20011212061605 39 Albedo 20020225155115 43 Abu_Dhabi 20010705143522 290 A 20010803163502 303 Alabama 20011002165631 305 Achilles 20011104022416 307 Abraham_Lincoln 20011201031855 308 Aristotle 20010512040455 309 An_American_in_Paris 20010424211432

90:

Hi Amaurea! Thanks for contacting me. I've raised the issue on the Knowledge-l mailing list, where it's received a much bigger public response and is actually being debated. I'm still wary, though, that a lot of people seem to be going along with the stable versions proposal without knowing too much

689:

I would like to prevent an edit war over the content you would like to add. Please make it clear in the talk page what your edits add content wise and why previous concerns regarding original research do not apply. My impression is the content you wish to add has already been discussed at length,

189:

AEQ any longer), there would be no visible effect on Knowledge's rate of growth. Furthermore, there is only one new featured article per day, while the number of newly created articles every day is far higher. Thus, although the number of protected articles would go up, the total number of articles

120:

Yes, unfortunately the camp which advocates a more closed Knowledge is gaining a lot of foothold recently, particularly after the Siegenthaler media controversy. That's why it probably wouldn't be good to hold a vote. However, by making our voice heard, we can not only convince others but also tell

379:

I see now why you wanted the fine-grained data. Does the "actual size" really follow an exponential curve that closely (for the last three years anyway)? Perhaps it would be better to use a logarithmic scale for the vertical "number of articles" axis. It's eerie if the growth is that consistent

747:

Keeping the header visible was the good part of that approach. Though on narrow displays (at least mine), the colunns didn't actually align, so it didn't work that well. Such scrollbars also make it harder to navigate the table. And I'm not sure what happens when you try to print it, which is an

871:

for the Independence Party, which is utterly confusing in a context where "S" is otherwise used (as the official party letter) for a different party. So, I have removed the figure again for the time being, to prevent confusing readers, but would like to ask: Maybe you could (for German-language

449:

that graph, you would see a very very noisy data set, with an up-spike followed by a down-spike, but that's deceiving because an up-spike and down-spike cancel out to be a flat line. (that's not always the case, but the log-fit graph shows that, for this data, that's almost uniformly true) --

1426:

That table indeed has some useful information, but could probably use some trimming. There are entries with zero content, and it's not clear that huge a table is needed. Perhaps the table could be moved off to another article (Sgr A* star cluster?), while leaving information for only the most

35:

Yes, that could have been a bit clearer. The first was the image in the infobox, and the second and third the images in the main body of the article, but some of these images have changed, and I think the infobox image is correct now. The only image I think could be wrong is the one for the

1007:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

497:

I'll do what I can, but I don't have any speed running experience myself, actually; what I know is what I've gathered from lurking on the nesvideos forums, so it would be nice if someone more into it could fill in the gaps in my knowlege. I agree that those disputed tags are an eyesore.

1153:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1080:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

622: 275:

uses (in the main namespace, not a redirect, has one outbound internal link). I have the query/code written, and just wanted to pass the format by you. I added a bit more information, primarily to make it easier to double-check the data for mistakes on my part.

1630:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

843:, although referring to a list in English-language Knowledge (which also might be subject to changes) certainly isn't ideal for using that figure in German-language Knowledge, but I would accept it there. It's a nice figure and can be helpful. However, as 477:

Thanks for your edits! I hope that you can continue to do heavy editing to that article in the future. It needs some love from someone who knows a lot about the phenomenon. I intend to work on it as well, but I'm still committed to first working out the

909:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

1484:

I agree that it could make sense to move most of the table to a separate page. These stars are called the "S-stars", so that would make sense as a page. The most notable stars should still be left, though - maybe those that have Knowledge

872:

Knowledge and maybe other Knowledge language versions using the Icelandic party letters) generate a version of your figure using party letters instead of English Knowledge's abbreviations? Then I would be glad to see it back in de-WP.

1627: 401:

to have the area below the red line be filled in. I actually have "filledcurves y1=0" turned on right now, but the graph isn't filled in. For what it's worth, you can see the gnuplot commands by searching for "set terminal png"

546: 1427:

relevant stars in the main article. I'd suggest that the three stars with articles of their own (S2, S55, S62) and maybe S4711 (if you can find some information for it) might be relevant to the overall Sgr A* article.

968: 1634:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

800:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 1888: 1800: 1710: 1558: 1329: 1181: 1108: 1035: 937: 380:

though. Also, do you know what events coincided with the two growth spurts in the first few years? I'm interested in wikipedia early history, and I guess there are a few possibilities, like 9/11? Or

1872:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1784:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1694:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1542:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1313:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1165:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1092:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1019:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 921:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 25:

you said that some of the images weren't of houseflies. Unfortunately, it's not clear to me which pictures you referred to when you said "the first" etc. Could you clarify? Thanks a lot,

610:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also 534:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also 249:"By marking a version of an article as stable, and presenting that version to normal visitors, we are breaking down the coupling between the number of readers and the number of editors." 729: 1857: 1769: 1680: 1528: 1299: 621:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

545:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

661: 762:

I know you don't own the page, but I didn't want to just revert the change, and wasn't entirely sure how to re-apply only the scrollbars. And you do make some good arguments. --

1490:

Thanks for the warning too. You're right. The large asymmetry in effort it takes to create something vs. delete it does not make it productive to slap labels on each other.

304:

I have a bit of doubt about the data... I'm going off the first recorded revision in history... I don't think that's always 100% accurate. For instance, looking at the

358:

Do you have any graphical output yet? Even if it's extremely preliminary, just having one image you update as you figure more things out would probably be useful. --

851:, there is another issue with the figure - the confusing use of party abbreviations. German-language Knowledge uses the official party letters; for example, the 848: 967:

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a

329:

is the first recorded revision, though it's not on January 15, 2001, so there must be some data lost from the beginning? The second revision I can find is

1616: 1396: 531: 513: 312:

the first version. Though I don't know much about the accuracy of the data from the early days. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, I don't know.

1392: 1911: 1823: 1733: 1580: 1351: 1195: 1122: 1049: 951: 825: 1219:

broke the named reference "Gillessen", apparently because it is defined twice. I thought you'd like to know so that you can fix it. :-) —

607: 589: 1646: 1611: 1595: 253:

The thing is: we won't be doing that! We'll show the most up to date version of the article, and note the most stable version. -

95:

and if you want to contribute to the discussion, you're welcome to post to the mailing list. Together we can make a difference!

1907: 1819: 1729: 1576: 1347: 1191: 1118: 1045: 947: 821: 585: 509: 840: 188:

is an overestimate, since some of them may have prospects of new developments in the near future, and others may not be : -->

398: 216:, that would seek to protect the community against misuse of powers/questionable conduct of admins and the ArbCom. Thanks, 1881: 1793: 1703: 1551: 1322: 1174: 1101: 1028: 930: 852: 268: 812:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1893: 1805: 1715: 1563: 1334: 1186: 1113: 1040: 942: 867:. Your figure is using inofficial/invented abbreviations that are used in English-language Knowledge's table, such as 817: 154:

MediaWiki release stated that he does want more community consensus on this, so hopefully we will have a strong case.

91:

about it, and the proponents of it just say "well, it's not a significant change". You can read the public debate at

1382: 860: 603: 527: 315:

Anyway, say the word and I'll go ahead and run the full report, it will probably take 30 - 60 minutes to run. --

1620: 728:

Could you reconsider your edit removing the scrollbars from the table of opinion polling results on the page "

710: 338: 199: 198:

of the total number of articles, and their effect on Knowledge's rate of growth would get ever smaller. --

1640: 877: 672: 971:

ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~

71:, but I don't know much more about flies than the average person, so I am not very confident about this. 1869: 1781: 1691: 1539: 1310: 1264: 1224: 1162: 1089: 1016: 918: 695: 646:. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- 570:. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- 1386: 1369:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

651: 611: 575: 535: 254: 1378: 482:

article first. Let's try and get those dispute tags out of the way at some point... —Michiel Sikma (

92: 1454: 813: 213: 403: 767: 737: 706: 342: 272: 1851: 1763: 1674: 1636: 1522: 1464: 1441: 1412: 1293: 1149: 1076: 1003: 905: 887: 873: 789: 780: 668: 341:, it's 38MB uncompressed, and lists 932500 pages. I'm not sure if that means it differs from 283:

timestamp of the very first revision in history for that page... the format is yyyymmddhhmmss

232: 170: 141: 111: 844: 1900: 1865: 1812: 1777: 1722: 1687: 1570: 1535: 1341: 1306: 1260: 1236: 1220: 1158: 1085: 1012: 914: 809: 793: 691: 632:

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

556:

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

487: 1880:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1792:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1702:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1550:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1321:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1173:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1100:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1027:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 929:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 808:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 437: 647: 623:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients (2nd nomination)

571: 1389:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 748:

important use case for the page. But it's not like I own the page, so do what you wish.

1877: 1789: 1699: 1547: 1318: 1212: 1170: 1097: 1024: 926: 805: 797: 53: 26: 602:

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for

526:

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for

1873: 1785: 1695: 1543: 1431: 1403:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1314: 1166: 1093: 1020: 972: 922: 801: 763: 733: 643: 636:

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

633: 626: 615: 567: 560:

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

557: 550: 539: 450: 440: 407: 359: 346: 316: 62: 22: 435: 1491: 1479: 1458: 1435: 1408: 1404: 1242: 749: 499: 228: 166: 137: 107: 72: 40: 1842: 1754: 1666: 1514: 1285: 1140: 1067: 994: 896: 483: 1370: 595: 519: 439:

How odd. gnuplot -V reports "gnuplot 4.0 patchlevel 0" on the toolserver. --

223: 161: 132: 102: 1628:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of countries by total road tunnel length

293:

I sorted it by page_id, just because that's easiest for me, which means it's

218: 156: 127: 97: 547:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients

479: 69: 1884:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1796:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1706:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1554:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1325:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1177:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1104:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1031:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

933:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

397:

re: filledcurves... I had wanted to modify the graphs at the bottom of

337:

It's a bit eerie looking back in time. Anyway, the report is done, see

37: 1861:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1773:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1684:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1532:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1303:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

297:

sorted by timestamp. The first couple of lines in the report will be:

705:

There is no consensus or a result of a discussion. Paid editing won.

434:

Oh, you're right, the face example isn't working on the toolserver.

1915: 1827: 1737: 1652: 1584: 1499: 1470: 1447: 1416: 1355: 1268: 1250: 1228: 1199: 1126: 1053: 982: 955: 881: 829: 771: 757: 741: 714: 699: 690:

and the current (pre-edit) wording is a result of that discussion.

676: 655: 579: 502: 491: 453: 443: 410: 362: 349: 319: 257: 235: 212:

Hi Amaurea! I was wondering what you think about the structure of a

202: 194:- with the end result that the protected articles would represent a 173: 144: 114: 75: 56: 43: 29: 1430:

As a secondary comment, calling an editor a "deletionist" violates

796:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

1897:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1809:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1719:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1567:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1338:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1887:

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

1855:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All

1799:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

1767:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

1709:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

1557:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

1328:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

1180:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

1107:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

1034:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

936:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

1678:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

1526:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

1374: 594: 518: 839:

Hi Amaurea; thanks for clarifying which data was used for

667:

Could you publish the sourcecode producing this diagram?--

48:

Yes, these do look different. Do you think they might be

1297:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

730:

Opinion polling for the Greek legislative election, 2015

1868: