Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page .
- If you are expressing a concern about edits made by RussBot, it is extremely helpful if you include a link to a specific page or, even better, a link to a diff showing the actual edit that the bot made. This makes it much easier to diagnose and correct problems.
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
![]() Archives |
||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents |
Smile
A bowl of strawberries for you!
![]() |
I apologize for my silly error, and hope this bowl of strawberries will help to make amends. Thank you for your work reverting vandals, and sorry for confusing you with the original vandal. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks! No harm done. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
A belated barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar | |
The Super Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to the winners of the Disambiguation pages with links monthly challenge, who have gone above and beyond to remove ambiguous links. Your achievment will be recorded at the Hall of Fame. This award is presented to R'n'B, for successfully fixing 3057 links in the challenge of January 2012. Nick Number (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
Ach
Thanks for the correction, I apparently wasn't thinking straight. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Undoing disambiguation fix edits
Is it possible to somehow have the bot revert all its changes changing Labuan to Labuan Territory? It was a bad move to create the disambiguation page, and pages are now back at their original titles. Cheers, CMD (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessary. Labuan Territory is now a redirect to Labuan so the links still take the reader to the correct article. As they say, if it ain't broke, .... --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- It may not be broke, but it does increase what is (for me) a slow loading time. Ah well, if it can't be done. CMD (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting. I tried an experiment. First I clicked on Labuan and opened it in a new tab. I waited until it was done loading, then did the same with Labuan Territory. If you look at the page source, right at the end of the body there is a line that tells you how long it took the server to deliver the page. For Labuan clicked on directly, it was "Served by srv201 in 2.332 secs." When accessed through the redirect, it was "Served by mw56 in 2.092 secs." While one trial doesn't necessarily prove anything, it does seem at least questionable whether using a redirect significantly affects loading time. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- How did you view the source directly? I'm getting Served by mw13 in 0.187 secs for the direct link, Served by mw42 in 0.195 secs for the redirect, but from clicking view source on google chrome, which opens the source on its own tab with its own loading circle, so I think those are the times for the source code to load rather than the page. My technical knowhow isn't that impressive unfortunately, so I'm afraid I don't know exactly what the numbers represent. It took significantly longer than a fifth of a second to load the source code pages, let alone the actual ones. CMD (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did it by clicking "View Source" in Firefox, but each browser has a similar functionality. You could also use Firebug or Chrome's developer tools (Ctrl+Shift+I) to view the HTML source. I'm pretty sure these comments are generated by the server at the time the page is loaded, not later when you view the source. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm getting Served by mw1 in 0.207 secs for Labuan now, and Served by mw10 in 0.253 secs for the redirect. However, before, when the redirect was being served by not mwXX but srvXX, it was at around 0.16 secs, which would imply it was faster. Not sure what the differences between all those are, or why those are different to the time it takes for chrome to actually show me the pages. Who knows, perhaps I'm just suffering from an excess of confirmation bias. Thanks anyway, this is quite interesting. CMD (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did it by clicking "View Source" in Firefox, but each browser has a similar functionality. You could also use Firebug or Chrome's developer tools (Ctrl+Shift+I) to view the HTML source. I'm pretty sure these comments are generated by the server at the time the page is loaded, not later when you view the source. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- How did you view the source directly? I'm getting Served by mw13 in 0.187 secs for the direct link, Served by mw42 in 0.195 secs for the redirect, but from clicking view source on google chrome, which opens the source on its own tab with its own loading circle, so I think those are the times for the source code to load rather than the page. My technical knowhow isn't that impressive unfortunately, so I'm afraid I don't know exactly what the numbers represent. It took significantly longer than a fifth of a second to load the source code pages, let alone the actual ones. CMD (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting. I tried an experiment. First I clicked on Labuan and opened it in a new tab. I waited until it was done loading, then did the same with Labuan Territory. If you look at the page source, right at the end of the body there is a line that tells you how long it took the server to deliver the page. For Labuan clicked on directly, it was "Served by srv201 in 2.332 secs." When accessed through the redirect, it was "Served by mw56 in 2.092 secs." While one trial doesn't necessarily prove anything, it does seem at least questionable whether using a redirect significantly affects loading time. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- It may not be broke, but it does increase what is (for me) a slow loading time. Ah well, if it can't be done. CMD (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Report request
Hey Russ, would it be possible to get a list like the Daily Disambig generated weekly, showing just the newly linked disambigs added over the past week instead of the past day? Cheers! bd2412 T 12:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Do you mean something like this? But seriously, what would be useful to you? New disambig pages? Existing disambig pages with added links? The data is available; I can probably give you more flexibiltiy than a weekly report. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let me work backwards from my methodology. Usually when the new Daily Disambig is posted, I open it in AWB, for which I have a saved text file with fixes for about a thousand commonly linked disambig pages - usual suspects like "battery", "seal", "swimming" and so forth. If those pages have gone from being linkless to having one or more links, they show up on the list of pages added to the list because AWB will want to correct them, and that way I can see which of my regulars need immediate fixes. However, if I miss a few days, it becomes less and less convenient to get the list of usual suspects for the days that I have missed. If there were a Weekly Disambig, listing all new pages that have joined the list in the past week (obviously I don't need to know which pages have left the list for this purpose), then I could knock out the whole thing once a week. bd2412 T 17:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'll play with this next week. I guess the easy way to do this would be to list pages that are on the list on day X but were not on it on day X-7. But then if you fixed the incoming links on Tuesday, and a new one got added on Thursday, it wouldn't be picked up on the Saturday report. Maybe I need to list pages that were absent from the list on any day during the week. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe an easier way to do it is to set up a page and just add the Daily Disambig's "pages that have joined the list" every day while subtracting the "pages that have left the list". I grant that, from the moment of its creation, the list would grow and grow, but at least it will generate a constant target for attack. bd2412 T 01:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'll play with this next week. I guess the easy way to do this would be to list pages that are on the list on day X but were not on it on day X-7. But then if you fixed the incoming links on Tuesday, and a new one got added on Thursday, it wouldn't be picked up on the Saturday report. Maybe I need to list pages that were absent from the list on any day during the week. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let me work backwards from my methodology. Usually when the new Daily Disambig is posted, I open it in AWB, for which I have a saved text file with fixes for about a thousand commonly linked disambig pages - usual suspects like "battery", "seal", "swimming" and so forth. If those pages have gone from being linkless to having one or more links, they show up on the list of pages added to the list because AWB will want to correct them, and that way I can see which of my regulars need immediate fixes. However, if I miss a few days, it becomes less and less convenient to get the list of usual suspects for the days that I have missed. If there were a Weekly Disambig, listing all new pages that have joined the list in the past week (obviously I don't need to know which pages have left the list for this purpose), then I could knock out the whole thing once a week. bd2412 T 17:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)