Request for bot flag edit

Hello, please see here. Regards, -Barras talk 20:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Barras, thanks for the notice. I didn't get a notice about the questions on the request, but I'm sure you guys closed it for good reason. I'll re-apply if asked to.

Dashboard:test edit

Does this page need to be in the main namespace? There is no "Dashboard" namespace and it is not clear what the purpose of this page is. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Thanks PiRSquared17 (talk), the page was a test at configuring a dashboarding system we're developing with Mediawiki articles. It's obsolete and I would delete it if I had permissions to do so. None of the other namespaces felt fitting. For future reference, what would be best to do in exploratory cases like this?
Long overdue, but deleted. For future reference, I suggest testwiki and testwiki2 series. Testing does not belong to meta. — regards, Revi 05:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Pageview API Github Recommendation edit

In you recommended I put my Python Pageview API code on Github. My coding skills come from the mainframe and C days. I did a good bit of desktop Windows development, but even that was 15 years ago. Python and Github are all very new to me. Can you provide any pointers on where to start in terms of adding my code to Github? I'm willing, but clueless.

Also, thanks for the recommendation on switching to JSON parsing. It should have occurred to me that it was JSON and there was a Python library available, but again, this is new territory for me. I appreciate your assistance.

Dave Braunschweig (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • I'm very happy to help :) Ok, so github doesn't even require an account (you can get one, if you'd like to contribute to a bunch of different open source projects, but be warned that Mediawiki development happens in a different tool called "Gerrit" so you won't be able to easily contribute to that from Github.). Anyway, to put up some code in a public place, just head over to and paste your code there. People will be able to comment and work on the code that way. If you end up editing the gist a lot, it's probably easier just to make an account.
  • As for fetching stuff from the API and parsing it as JSON, I think this is the simplest:
import json
import requests # sudo pip install requests if you don't have this

fetched = requests.get('')
parsed = json.loads(fetched.text)
print parsed['items'][0]['articles'][0]['article']
Cool. Thanks! I'll see what I can do. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Page views edit

On 13:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC) you wrote We worked on making pageview stats publicly available, and that will be announced literally within a day or so so I am just wondering where this was announced? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)please ping meReply

Ottawahitech, we announced the pageview API in this blog post. It's exhaustive at the risk of being boring but let me know if you need to know more :) Milimetric (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

User experience edit

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for posting this. Wikipedia UX is bad but what's worse is Wikipedia's promise of "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". It's like bringing a kid into a toy store and saying "you can play with anything" and then shouting at him for playing wrong or not following the manual when putting together a Lego set. The emotional drop from most well-intended desire to share information on a topic of choice to being told off (often in cryptic lingo) is too much for too many. I'm glad to see people inside WMF see and acknowledge that. --SSneg (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I'll keep banging that drum, and I'm kind of excited now that I have a bit more cred as I'm a bit older with the movement. Maybe my drum will become part of the orchestra :) Don't worry a lot of people agree with this point and I think the recent changes in the org are going to help drive improvements.

reportcard-data edit

Hi Dan,

I'm asking myself, why the data in rc_very_active_editors_count.csv changes over time. Are you editing the values afterwards? When I compare my old data with the data from 2015/12/01 I get this discrepancies:

[I removed the table pasted because I agree it has discrepancies but it's big and obstructs my answer :)]
Ok, so the answer is easy though sometimes people don't agree with it. The numbers change because we re-compute all of history every month and take into consideration the fact that some pages have been deleted. So edits to those pages, and therefore editors who were made active because of those edits, disappear from the stats. This is, of course, just one way to measure the phenomenon of editing, and only by measuring it both with deletion drift (which is what we call this historical change) and without deletion drift can we get a full understanding. For the purpose of the reportcard we chose to update statistics based on deletion drift, and there have been debates about that choice internally. Nevertheless, until we have a more sophisticated way to visualize / explain this phenomenon, we have to choose one way or another, so we're happy with our choice. Milimetric (talk)
Thanks for your explanation. I absolutely agree, that it's sensible to exclude deleted pages.
Generally I would appreciate if you wouldn't delete the old reportcard data. My diagram relies on this data and I don't like that the datasource gets constantly removed.--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm a bit confused whe you say "the datasource gets constantly removed". That file has been in that repository and hosted on the reportcard since I started work here, it's never been deleted. Milimetric (WMF) (talk)
It contains the data of 24 months as a "moving window". I would like not to cut the oldest data.--Kopiersperre (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Oh I see, sadly that's pretty hard to change in this ancient process. We are actively working on a much better way to just see all this data going back as far as you wish. Until then, this data is on a sliding window but you could see the history since it's in a git repository. I realize this is totally ugly and not optimal. Here's the link:

Thanks for the link, I'm already using it. The ugliness is not really an obstacle. I just generally wonder, why everything is getting more complicated today. Why only oldschool governments still publish just simple, static text files (e.g. CPI-US)?--Kopiersperre (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Re: Analytics planning edit

I can't help finding you're underestimating the value of «She saw it was our goal and didn't reject it». It's impossible to make comparisons and give credit to anyone because WMF has never been a transparent org in the last decade, but for instance up to 2014 the WMF's top management's planning for analytics didn't make any sense to me. Nemo 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nemo, I hope you find my candid response on Wikimedia-l illuminating. I'm happy to answer any more questions, from my perspective of course. The older I get the more I realize reality is so complicated that ultimately you just have to look someone in the eyes and find out if they truly want to help you or not. In this case, I promise you I wanted nothing more than to help people get the pageview data, and the twists and turns might have just been unavoidable. Milimetric (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey edit

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey edit

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

How we will see unregistered users edit


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

wikistats2 edit

Please help with Thank you. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply