>I do not want to be unkind, but concept with opt-in using
special
>subpages is drastically stupid.
>Please change your mind before we have 100 000 opt in pages
on 700 projects.
>AJF/WarX
meow
It doesn't look that bad to me, and you can check your
option with a single click on subpage (but sure, it'd look
much better if SUL is created, with one opt-in subpage for
all projects)
Putting it on main userpage/talk page doesn't look
advantageous to me :
-bigger page to parse
-opt-in informations lost in the middle of other things
I suppose the subpage is read (from the TS DB) every time
the editcount is called, so with user pages weighting many
k's it could become a signifiant strain.
fr:user:DarkoNeko
------------------------ ALICE C'EST ENCORE MIEUX AVEC CANAL+ LE BOUQUET ! ---------------
Découvrez vite l'offre exclusive ALICEBOX et CANAL+ LE BOUQUET, en cliquant ici http://alicebox.fr
Soumis à conditions.
hello,
there will be network maintenance at knams on Tuesday morning (UTC).
connectivity to the toolserver will probably be sporadic during this time.
- river.
Hello all,
I got many eMails from you all :). I expand all these accounts to 5 May 2008.
Below is the list of people who did NOT send me an email. So if you are NOT
on this list, I got your eMail and everything is fine. If you are on this
list and like to confirm your account, please send me an eMail to
ts-not-expire(a)daniel.baur4.info (don't forget to name your accountname). If
you are on the list and send me an eMail allready, please send it again.
Sincerly,
DaB.
80686
aaron
aaronsw
adambro
annabel
arkyan
autocracy
avar
aviator
betacommand
bjweeks
brendan
byrial
cbrown1023
charlie
chp1994
chris
christophe
cmackenzie
cool_cat
cyroxx
dapete
dario_vet
darkoneko
dbryant
dvyjones
eagle
engels
erkomandante
escaladix
evhart
flacus
fmaunier
gchriss
gerald
geridev
gmaxwell
gribeco
hashar
helios
hippietrail
ideogram
ilyah
interiot
ipye
joanjoc
kmartin
kylu
lar
leon
lottobot
madman
magnus
marc
mashiah
mathbot
mcmonster
mdd4696
merphant
millosh
multichill
nikola
notafish
olaf
orgullo
paulatz
pgk
porao
presroi
prolineserver
purodha
pxma
revvar
rhodo
robert
secular_mind
selket
shadow1
skenmy
snowolf
spamda
stable
stephanie
stv
symode09
tawker
thebainer
valhallasw
veinor
verisimilus
viksit
virgil
vishwin60
voj
webboy
where
wikihermit
yuma
zach
--
wp-blog.de
Reading Simterical's comments, I asked myself, what are the advantages and
disadvantages of having Edit Counter as an extension, and not a Toolserver
project?
Being part of MediaWiki's (extensions) code allows faster
internationlization of messages. Also, there will be no replication lag to
take into account. On the other hand, *perhaps* it may make creation of
graphs a little harder, but I'm not sure (since I regularly create several
graphs using PHP and GD with my Toolserver account).
What do you think?
Hey folks.
Sorry for the issues with my email spamming this and other lists over the
last few days, google decided to kill my gmail account... - Please
unsubscribe the other address, as I don't have access to the account and
can't do that confirmation stuff.
--
DCollins/ST47
Administrator, en.wikipedia.org
Channel Operator, irc.freenode.net/#wikipedia
Hi there,
on the stable toolserver project page, I read:
"There are a number of important, well liked, and widely used tools on
the toolserver systems. Currently the toolserver serves well over 1
million http requests per day to over 65,000 distinct IPs per day and
there are a number of non-http based tools as well. The 3 to 4 most
popular tools account for roughly 3/4 of the http requests."
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Toolserver/Stable_server)
In short, it shows that the toolserver and the tools hosted by it
*are* important to the community (and maybe the readers out there, I
can't figure out, really).
I have a few questions about this:
1) do we know what tools are the most used (and hence would actually
make most sense to migrate to a stable toolserver)
2) Can we, from the above list, also say which tools are the most
useful (ie. without which some projects would just break, I am
especially thinking Commons here)
3) Do I undersand this right in saying that a "stable" toolserver
would mean a way of actually integrating for real those tools into our
daily operational monitoring (ie. it *must* work, just like the
websites must be up)?
4) Has anyone actually made any kind of a budget concerning what kind
of machine we'd need, what the cost of maintenance would be, if we
want to make sure there is some sysadmin time devoted to it (ie. a
real full cost things about this).
My underlying idea is the following. There are many organisations out
there, Wikimedia Chapters and other friends of Wikimedia, who would
definitely finance something like a stable toolserver, all the more if
it is proven that it is essential to the Wikimedia projects [*].
So I would really urge those who are developping and maintaining tools
that are useful and widely used to express their interest and help
build this project so that it is "sellable" to entities ready to help
us with making it happen.
Cheers,
Delphine
*for example, in all POV fashion, I am not sure that an edit counter"
is *essential* to the Wikimedia projects, although it's good tool and
might be an important asset to the development of the community. On
the other hand, I am convinced that "check usage" is essential for the
Wikimedia projects on a wide scale.
-----
Delphine Ménard
Chapters coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
dmenard[at]wikimedia[punto]org
I'll be able to help in both PHP and Python (although I'm more a PHP guy). I
think we should really make a more clear plan about caching, features that
are going to be included, graphs that are going to be generated (if any) (I
really miss the graphs which were previously present in Interiot's tool)
etc.
Hojjat (aka Huji)
As suggested before, we should begin to explore the need of a dedicated editcounter that is run on the new stable server. The simple fact is that it would make life easier for many wikis, by providing a fast and reliable editcounter for users to utilise for any purpose (RfA, RfB, etc.).
Is there anyone that has a editcount utility that would be fine with hosting it on the stable server?
Thanks in advance,
Kind regards,
E
English Wikipedia
e.wikipedia(a)gmail.com
As suggested before, we should begin to explore the need of a dedicated editcounter that is run on the new stable server. The simple fact is that it would make life easier for many wikis, by providing a fast and reliable editcounter for users to utilise for any purpose (RfA, RfB, etc.).
Is there anyone that has a editcount utility that would be fine with hosting it on the stable server?
Thanks in advance,
Kind regards,
E
English Wikipedia
e.wikipedia(a)gmail.com