Hi, just wanted to say hello. I’m looking forward to my cloak. – Giftpflanze 07:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[]

Board of Trustees' translationsEdit

Hi Giftpflantze, I just wanted to show you my appreciation for having translated all the profiles...it is a dirty job, so I thought to say "thank you" :-D--Ferdinando Scala 13:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[]

Thank you back :) I haven’t yet done all of it, though. But it is indeed a difficult task sometimes. – Giftpflanze 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[]
Danke schön, I wanted to thank you for your translation, I wished I could tell it in German but well, sorry... Best wishes, Claudi/Capsot 07:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[]


Hi Giftpflanze, vielen Dank für die Übersetzung der September-Highlights! Ich werde sie bald zusammen mit den anderen bis jetzt fertigen Versionen auf WikimediaAnnounce-l ankündigen (im Moment warte ich noch, ob auch die japanische bald fertig wird).

Wie du sieht, habe ich (als HaeB) einige Ausdrücke wieder ins englische Original umgewandelt, da es sich um Eigennamen handelt oder um Begriffe, die - unter Wikimedianern - auch im Deutschen gebräuchlicher sind als übersetzte Versionen (das gilt meinem Eindruck nach auch zB für "Chapter", aber ich habe die "Ländervereinigungen" erst mal belassen). Ansonsten ist es natürlich erstrebenswert, unnötige Anglizismen zu vermeiden.

Ich überlege mal, wie man das mit der Report Card für den Oktober-Bericht ein bisschen allgemeinverständlicher formulieren kann (nebenbei: Der Prototyp sieht so aus). Wenn dir bei den wiederkehrenden Teilen des allgemeinen Monatsberichts noch etwas auffällt, das im Original verbessert werden könnte, um es für Nicht-Muttersprachler zugänglicher zu machen, sag Bescheid.

Grüße, Tbayer (WMF) 05:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Translation RequestEdit

Hi, we need a German translation for the Second Annual Editor Survey 2011: Research:Wikipedia Editors Survey November 2011/Translation We would really appreciate your help. Thank you! Akhanna 19:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your help. We would appreciate your help in finishing the survey. Thanks again! Akhanna 21:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[]

GiftBot dwl efficacy/statisticsEdit

Hi Giftpflanze,

Thank you for correcting and updating the GiftBot section of Fixing dead links. One thing that I'm curious about is how to measure the effectiveness of GiftBot vs Cyberbot II, in terms of how many dead links get fixed on article pages. Is there a way to tell how many links get fixed as a result of GiftBot's notifications? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[]

I think Cyberbot II is more efficient in brute replacing of links. Users acting on GiftBot's messages are certainly slower but more accurate. Surely you could make Cyberbot II acting with 99,(…?) % accuracy, editors on the other hand can also reevaluate links (are they actually good and still needed?), find replacements and other sources. I already linked de:User:GiftBot/Testseite for template transclusion count for the old and new templates (currently the templates of 2012 are updated with templates of 2015/2016, the number roughly gives you the number of articles that are affected (have broken links), from that substract an unknown number of templates that aren't needed at the moment because the links are already fixed but no one removed the template, I will remove them in the following months.) Boshomi linked to de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Weblinkwartung#Statistik, giving a very rough estimate on the decline of broken links. I'm sorry that I didn't plan for or take more exact measurements of success. – Giftpflanze 06:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[]
Sorry, I guess I touched a nerve. I didn't mean to. I want to understand the advantages and disadvantages of all the approaches people are taking to this problem, and that was a piece that I couldn't figure out just by looking at the links. Your point about re-evaluating whether links are needed is a good one, I hadn't thought about that as an advantage. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[]
No no, it's all fine, you didn't touch a nerve of me. I just wanted to lay out my estimate of the pros and cons of the different approaches.
And also, be warned (if no one has warned you until now): The automatic replacement of links with archive links, in my estimate, will not be received well by the dewiki community (the two dissenting voices in the survey where dewiki users) as they're generally sceptical of uncritically replacing dead links by archive links, an automated approach would be seen as even more detrimental. So, we will see how the roll-out of Cyberbot II on dewiki will go. I promise you it'll be fun. (So, get proper consensus there first. It will backfire to your project otherwise and the usual drama ensues.) – Giftpflanze 06:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[]
No, we don't have any intention of rolling things out on wikis that don't want them; I know the kind of fun that creates. :) Our goal is to help as many wikis as we can, in the way that each community finds useful. That's why we want to understand all the pros and cons of the different approaches, to see if/how we can help.
The most important task for us is to create modules and services that can be used by bot and gadget writers on any wiki. We're going to start working soon on a centralized logging system on Tool Labs for all bots that are doing dead link fixes/reports. (T126363) We've also started working on some advanced dead link detection, which could be used anywhere. (T125181)
Would you be interested in having a real-time conversation with a couple of the developers on our team? I'd like to know if you have ideas for something we could build or help with, and find out if the things we're working on would be helpful for you or for de.wp. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[]