[09:28:58] (03CR) 10Ladsgroup: [C: 032] Make "r" flag red, Also highlight the whole row [extensions/ORES] - 10https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/266167 (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124616) (owner: 10Ladsgroup) [09:30:15] (03Merged) 10jenkins-bot: Make "r" flag red, Also highlight the whole row [extensions/ORES] - 10https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/266167 (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124616) (owner: 10Ladsgroup) [16:27:03] o. [16:27:06] o/! [16:27:08] Hey Amir1 [16:27:39] still catching up on email, but I should have the "reverted" status of that big edit sample worked out today. [18:01:01] halfak: hey, sorry I thought I'm connected but damn IRCCloud [18:01:18] I finished review Martin's paper [18:01:37] halfak: do you mean all of 1M edits? [18:02:13] Yup! [18:02:28] okay, sure [18:02:30] I'm on it [18:02:45] one thing: I also finished the mini intro of wikidata [18:03:16] and pushed an edit to wb-vandalism in your branch halfak, please check it [18:03:59] halfak: one thing before I start: what is criteria of revert detection? radius and window [18:04:19] (I made my notes in the etherpad) [19:43:14] o/ Amir1 [19:43:17] just got back from lunch. [19:43:26] hey :) [19:43:27] I have 380k edits labeled as reverted or not. [19:43:39] oh I was writing the script [19:43:41] I'll start with a quick analysis of those so that we can get a sense for what's coming. [19:43:45] Oh! Sorry for the trouble. [19:43:57] Check out my recent commits to editquality [19:44:03] :( I caused duplicated work [19:44:11] It's okay [19:44:18] I was at middle of the work [19:44:29] so you saved lots of duplication [19:44:29] So, the criteria I set was a revert radius of 15 and a window of 7 days. [19:44:41] So that we can catch reverts broadly. [19:44:46] Good then :) [19:45:06] ok, what I need to do now? [19:45:22] check out the etherpad [19:46:09] I also fixed a typo in Persian translation of wikilabels (in the config repo) and I pushed it right away [19:48:35] as I see you improved parallel computing a lot, awesome [19:50:10] halfak: lhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Revision_scoring_as_a_service/Work_log/2016-01-30#heindorf2015towards [19:50:15] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Revision_scoring_as_a_service/Work_log/2016-01-30#heindorf2015towards [20:44:25] Amir1, saw that. I think next work should be writing. [20:44:29] Sorry I missed your ping. [20:44:44] it's okay [20:45:29] halfak: In the etherpad I gave a number to each of my tasks, I first do the number one, then the number two, ..., [20:46:02] * halfak looks [20:46:24] first I saw it, I felt overwhelmed in order to cope I triage them [20:46:55] Also please check the wb-vandalsim repo and recent commit [20:49:22] Order looks OK. We'll probably want a more prose-like critique of the Wikidata Vandalism paper before calling that "done". [20:50:08] Line 20 doesn't have a priority [20:50:38] Seems like that could be last since we already have some discussion for it. [20:51:11] I'm working through a set of merge edits right now (not that many in the dataset that show up as "reverts") [20:52:22] I added priority [20:52:26] to line 20 [20:59:14] Amir1, can you tell me what is wrong with this edit? https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q19818174&diff=next&oldid=214980564 [21:00:21] it seems it was a disambiguation in frwiki but not in other wikis [21:00:44] in other wikis it was about a first name [21:04:06] Gotcha. So obviously a good-faith mistake. [21:04:26] It's interesting to me that Wikidata has items for disambig pages. [21:05:40] it's a place to keep site links in order to burn old interwikis ([[en:Foo]]) in deep hell [21:05:40] 10[1] 1010https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foobar - Redirección desde 10https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo?redirect=no [21:06:22] Looks like a lot of these were "good" merges where pulling over the disambig properties was not desired. [21:07:47] Hmm... this shouldn't have been reverted. [21:08:02] Because there were some good contributions in that edit -- e.g. the language-specific label. [21:10:25] Can't figure out what is wrong with this edit. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?diff=200811759 [21:10:55] Oh! merging a relevant category into a topic page. [21:11:07] Should categories get their own Items? [21:11:18] Seems like the item represents a category! [21:11:54] yeah. that looks like it was a good merge. WTF [21:15:33] o/ Amir1. [21:15:55] Looks like all of the merge reverts are disagreements about whether categories should get their own item. [21:16:11] but I finished some part [21:16:14] E.g. if you have a category for Jimmy Wales and an item for Jimmy Wales -- maybe they should e the same thing. [21:16:29] damn IRCCould [21:16:41] Miss some stuff?