Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

This page is a feedback forum for XTools. For reporting bugs, it's preferred that you use Phabricator.

If the issue is urgent and you're unable to use Phabricator, feel free to ping one of the active maintainers.

Some top editors examples don't work

Okhjon (talkcontribs)

Hello, two one of the three examples given here don’t work:

I’m not sure if this is an issue in the examples or a bug.

Edit: the second example had a "danger" key that appears to be related to a previous call.

Reply to "Some top editors examples don't work"

Suggested improvements for "Time card"

RCraig09 (talkcontribs)

Preliminarily: kudos to all you guys!

I suggest that in the "Time card", an eighth row be added at the bottom to show the **Total** number of edits for each hour.

Similarly, I suggest that a 25th column be added, to show the **Total** number of edits for each day.

Thanks for all your cool work.

Bruce1ee (talkcontribs)

What would also be nice for the Edit Counter Time Card is if the times could be in the user's timezone, not UTC. The user could select it from a dropdown list.

Thank you. Love this tool.

RCraig09 (talkcontribs)

I agree with Bruce1ee. Because of changes into and out of daylight savings (DST) time, it would actually be more meaningful to show in user-specifiable time than in UTC. Switches into and out of DST are (as I understand them) fairly uniform worldwide, and could be readily programmed if there is the time and the inclination.

MusikAnimal (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Suggested improvements for "Time card""

Статистика моєї сторінки

Юрко Градовський (talkcontribs)

Вітаю. Чи не можна видалити з моєї сторінки статистики інформацію про створення статті

Це була помилкова дія системи, коли я ставив ШВ, в той час адмін вже вилучав статтю і вона створилась наново з моїм лише шаблоном. Дякую. @Юрко Градовський

Reply to "Статистика моєї сторінки"

RuWiki support for the Blame tool

This post was hidden by Iniquity (history)

Absolute sizes in edit counter

PJvanMill (talkcontribs)

Hello, there.

I think that in the "Edit counter" tool:

  1. After "Average edit size" should come "Average edit size (abs.)" with the average of the absolute-value (n --> n; -n --> n) edit sizes
  2. "Small edits" and "Large edits" should look at the absolute-value edit sizes - currently an edit removing >1000 bytes is seemingly counted as a "Small edit" instead of a "Large edit", making those metrics worse than useless in some cases

I know that #1 has already been suggested a year ago and seems to have been rejected on the basis that it's too computationally expensive. I think calculating calculating absolute values should be very light on resources, though, at least when not done with squaring and taking the square root (as the submitter of the previous topic suggested) but instead with something like an if-statement that does (n --> n; -n --> n).

Kind regards from someone with a negative average edit size

Reply to "Absolute sizes in edit counter"
Summary by MusikAnimal

Unfortunately not feasible at this time

Patriccck (talkcontribs)


I think that Rollbacker Stats could be helpful. Are you considering creating these statistics?

MusikAnimal (talkcontribs)

Unfortunately there is no logged action for rollback. Admin/Steward/Patroller stats all rely on entries at Special:Log. Rollbacks are tagged, so it is possible to count them and group by user, but I suspect this would be slow and it'd also require a major reworking of how the tool currently works. I don't see Rollbacker Stats happening in the short-term. Sorry!

Patriccck (talkcontribs)

Ok, thanks for reply.

Summary by MusikAnimal

Expected behaviour

PMG (talkcontribs)


What is reason for difference between Total edits and Global edit counts?

Link to counter:

I have Total edits 284,156


Global edit counts (approximate) ► 282,947

What is the reason?

MusikAnimal (talkcontribs)

XTools has its own way of counting edits, which includes things like page moves. The global edit counts are going off of CentralAuth, which doesn't include page moves, and various other things, hence why it says "approximate".

Draceane (talkcontribs)

I've find out that as some admins mark they edits as bot edits (example), they appear as former bots on the list. Is there any way to mark this users as "normal users", not bots? (E.g. mark as former bots only those users, who have had long-time bot rights?)

MusikAnimal (talkcontribs)

That seems like a fair compromise that we can investigate, but of course there could be actual short-lived bots that are reported as human. In practice, I think communities should demand dedicated accounts be created for automation.

Reply to "Article info: Former bots"

EC claims user does not exist if username is encoded by {{urlencode:}}

SoWhy (talkcontribs)
DannyS712 (talkcontribs)
SoWhy (talkcontribs)

Yeah, I figured that out now. I added PATH to the urlencode: and it now encodes as %20 :-)

Summary by MusikAnimal

Feature complete

Evolution and evolvability (talkcontribs)

Would love the option of displaying the full hourly Time card. No great need, just interest.

MusikAnimal (talkcontribs)