Revision as of 18:14, 11 June 2015 edit Technical 13 (talk \| contribs) 37,142 edits m →{U\|PhantomTech}: 780/886 checked (just over a 100 to go, hope legal gets back to me soon)... ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:18, 11 June 2015 edit undo Technical 13 (talk \| contribs) 37,142 edits →{U\|PhantomTech}: 800/886 checked -- Still waiting on WMF legal to reply to email. Next edit →
Line 4: * What part of the canvassing policy does it violate to notify users of a script of a discussion about upcoming changes to that script that will directly impact them? I'm not aware of any such verbiage, and would be happy to comply if you can point me to it. * I offer two options near the very top of that comment after I explain why I don't do discussion on IP talk pages. Those two options were "''We can discuss it on ANI (since you started the discussion there) or we can discuss it here I suppose (although I am pretty busy, so I may be very slow in responding to any comments you may make).''" ANI (the hard way), or on my own talk page (the easy way). What exactly is wrong with that? * I explained my interpretation of why it wasn't a canvassing violation per [[WP:APPNOTE]]. I'll expand this to say that of the {{UserContribs2\|Technical 13\|886\|886 users notified\|20150523024000}}, ~~663~~679/~~780~~800 were inactive editors ({{#expr:((~~663~~679/~~780~~800)100)round2}}%) (1112 are blocked - I admit I should have filtered those people out of the list, at least one came back specifically to comment on the discussion, a couple dozen are now active again <small>- didn't think to keep an exact count before I had already checked 500 of them</small>). That means I mathematically notified {{#expr:ceil(886.151512)}} out of {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} (about {{#expr:(((886.151512)/{{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS:R}})100)round2}}%) active users. I don't consider that a lot, sorry. If someone wanted to specifically define a lot in relation to the {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} Wikipedia accounts, I'd be more than happy to respect that.<!-- check them all, I don't want mathematically to be called into question--> * So, you admit that you dehumanized me by calling me a bot. Shame on you. My claim is that I followed the letter of policy by not using a bot. I could have very easily posted it as an RfC, but my goal wasn't "just" about the topic of a humor page. The biggest part of the goal (based on a sample of 20 random names in the list of about 1,700 that yielded a result of about 93% of people (technically 95% at 19/20, but one was real close with only one edit in a year that happened to drop them in the "active" group, so I gave only 3% for that one) using those templates being inactive (about {{#expr:ceil(1700*.07)}} active users)) was to try to encourage some of our now retired and/or inactive editors to come back to Wikipedia and join a "fun" discussion about a silly humor page to remind them that Wikipedia is still here and try and peak their interest to come back. We kind of have declining numbers of editors, and I was hoping to poke at a few decent retired ones to get renewed interest.

User:Technical 13/Drafts/Response: Difference between revisions