[dubiousdiscuss][citation needed][further explanation needed][according to whom?][clarification needed][failed verification][how?][verify][vague][needs update][when?][where?][which?][who?][why?][who said this?][compared to?][specify][misquoted][example needed]

Do you have the query for User:Polygnotus/Data/FeaturedArticleCounts

edit

Hey, Do you by chance have the query you used to generate that file? I, @Hey man im josh and @Novem Linguae were discussing the possibility of throwing together a toolforge tool based on citehighlighter and it would be nice to be able to show users the number/a list of similar FA/GA class pages that use similar sources. Sohom (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Sohom Datta:! I didn't use a query. Because there are so few of them I just made API calls overnight. I then extracted the URLs, extracted the domainnames, and did the counting in Java. Is it possible to see that conversation somewhere? Or was it on IRC/Discord? It sounds interesting. I may or may not have some ideas. Polygnotus (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Polygnotus: It was a casual conversation in the main English wiki discord channel on the en wiki discord server.
I've long loved the idea of putting a URL into a web site to see whether Wikipedia interprets it as RS, and that was the focus of the discussion. Novem was open to the idea, but they wanted to see that it was desired by enough people.
I like the premise of searching and finding "Canada123 is considered reliable source based on WP:CANADA and RSP page." Or something similar. I think it could be a very useful tool, but I'm still working on the idea of how/where to propose it. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Hey man im josh The first part should be easy to implement thanks to User:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter/SourcesJSON.js. Connecting it to a exact RSN discussion or RSP/VG entry might take a bit more work. Sohom (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, absolutely. I vaguely mentioned the idea of accepted / trusted volunteers who could add the relevant links. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sohom Datta: I still have the code used of course and I'd be happy to run it again. It has been undeleted and moved to User:Polygnotus/Data/FeaturedArticleCounts (it is not very outdated because FAs are pretty rare, back then there were 6538 and currently there are 6566). My conversation with Novem Linguae is here. Novem Linguae added a bunch of them to SourcesJSON. User:Headbomb/unreliable also exists but I haven't really looked at it. GreenC keeps track of basically every URL on Wikipedia IIRC. Polygnotus (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sohom Datta: My idea would be:
  • Make a API with 5 endpoints
    1. voteup
    2. votedown
    3. trustedvoteup (which would count for, lets say, +5 votes)
    4. trustedvotedown (ditto, but -5)
    5. list
  • Make a javascript that:
    1. adds up and down arrows to each source. Click the up arrow to vote that a source is reliable, down arrow for unreliable.
    2. colors the source a shade of green or red depending on the amount of amount of up or downvotes if there are more than x up or downvotes
    3. Shows how many ratings this source has.
  • Give the trusted people the ability to authenticate to the API and then rate sources.
I made a list of the top 10.000 most often referenced domains, make a table sorted by number of occurences where people can easily rate them.
What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A beer for you!

edit
  I've never considered looking at the Spam block list log. Nice WP-fu! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thank you! It is one of those forgotten log pages that can be quite handy. Polygnotus (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-38

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 23:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Barnstar for you

edit
  The Original Barnstar
In acknowledgement of your dedication to the WP mission, and your good humor in the face of aspersions, displayed at Luis Elizondo. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-39

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I just disturb you.

edit

But, I have now an acount so we can talk more easily! Grubisz440 (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Grubisz440: Hiya! Welcome to Wikipedia! Polygnotus (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Race and intelligence

edit
 
The ex-neighbour in question

Hello Polygnotus, I just wanted to drop by to tell you about an interesting template I recently found. Expanding it could theoretically allow users to navigate this confusing content area a lot more comfortably. Maybe you have some ideas as to its potential content.
Kind regards
Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Biohistorian15: Hiya! I changed the section header because we tend to use the %month% %year% format when telling someone off. I believe the race and intelligence stuff is rather boring because unfortunately there is currently only one living human race (although I do suspect one of my former neighbors might belong to the homo floresiensis). And we do not yet have a reliable way to measure all facets of intelligence. I read a bit of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence but it was very boring. I would recommend the fascinating study of animal intelligence instead. Polygnotus (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No worries. And I have met my fair share of people worthy of their very own taxonomic adage as well, haha.
Maybe you know somebody else to the (relative) left of these issues that is as charitable as you mostly were in our few past interactions. I just don't want to edit the thing for a long time with my sole POV involved... and then be called a POV pusher by uninvolved bystanders lol. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Biohistorian15: I think that people who agree with me are very boring. My wife has yet to agree with me.
I (try to) remember the usernames of people who disagreed with me in interesting ways, or even convinced me, and of those who are experts on certain topics.
Unfortunately I don't know the political leanings of the overwhelming majority of users so I assume that everyone else is a despicable centrist anarcho-nazi-communist. You could ask @Slatersteven: if he is interested in this kinda stuff, but be warned, you should read their userpage first! But I would not describe him as charitable, because that might offend him. I have strong opinions on certain subjects, and I am very confident that those opinions are correct, but I never edit the related articles. I don't even read them. This is good for my mental health, saves me a lot of time, and it ensures I can laugh at anyone who accuses me of POV pushing. And when a debate doesn't go the way I want it to I can shrug and move on. If I would edit the articles about stuff I am passionate about irl then my passion would be a weakness for me as a Wikipedian. Polygnotus (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
You did pique my curiosity; how would you describe your POV? It is easy to forget that both the left- and right-wing are very diverse. Polygnotus (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I'll try to remember Slatersteven's name for future occasions like this, but after the predictable FT/N posting, I'll likely have quite a few dissenters to work with already...
Regarding politics on the matter, my position is actually much more moderate than it might look from the outside, it's ultimately agnostic; but in light of the kinds of hounding I've been through in the past (*people taking old sentence fragments out of context etc.), I can only deliver a passionate monologue if you mail me. Best of wishes, Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-41

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 23:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't Just Revert, but Helps Out Too

edit
  The Original Barnstar
Most of the time, when people revert your edits because you didn't follow all ten thousand Wikipedia rules, you don't expect them to help you out and make it right. Not this person. Thanks again. Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 08:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you sir! Polygnotus (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit
  Thank you for your response on Teahouse
TNM101 (chat) 08:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! I love cookies! Polygnotus (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Resolved

edit

Please consider not adding "Resolved" to Teahouse posts. The original poster and/or Teahouse Hosts may have more to contribute. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The poster got indeffed and most likely won't be back. It would be a waste of time to contribute more. Polygnotus (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
97 different archives of the Teahouse contain at least one usage of that template. People use it to help others to avoid wasting time. Perhaps try the Idea Lab if you have a better suggestion. Polygnotus (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have often added that an editor has been indeffed, which I consider useful to others at Teahouse. But I was more thinking about your "Resolved" at the Kennedy kerfuffle rather than the edit warring editor. David notMD (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I thought you meant the other one because I responded to you there. In that case I think we agree that no one can add anything of value. About the Kennedy-stuff, the poster expressed suprise that Wikipedia does not mention a thing that he or she misremembered. I strongly doubt that anyone can add anything of value to that after the case of mistaken identity had been explained, but if there somehow is something worth adding then people are still able to do that. The resolved template does not automatically lock or archive the section; people can still edit it just like any other section. It is used to indicate that the question has been answered, not to scare people off from editing the section. In some cases discussions do get closed, often when they are not productive, but in that case people use {{atop}} and {{abot}}. I have used those, IIRC, once to boldly close a nonsensical discussion. Luckily no one edited that section after that because it was a waste of time. It would be nice if the Refdesks and Helpdesks and Teahouse had something like a little icon to indicate that a question has been answered, that could save people time. Polygnotus (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-42

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 21:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

edit

Tech News: 2024-43

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 20:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-44

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 20:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.DaveApter (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-45

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 20:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

edit