Tue, Nov 10
I guess there's not much we can do, but unless I'm misreading time stamps,
it has been down for 8 hours. My understanding is that when it is
restarted, it doesn't go back so that's a quite a few potential violations
that will have to be caught by other means.
Oct 30 2020
For the prior period (from 2020-10-28 04:03 to 2020-10-28 08:33;)
article - Refractive index
Time - 2020-10-28 04:03
For the most recent period (2020-10-28 09:50 to 2020-10-28 16:40) the last
item processed was:
article – Gebhard Leberecht von Bl?cher
Time - 2020-10-28 09:50
Oct 29 2020
I'm fine with the auto restart. My hope is that this will occur as close to
the top of the hour as possible so that we can conclude if the system seems
to be unavailable at the top of the hour it's in the middle of a restart
and it will be available soon probably no more than 12 minutes later.
Oct 28 2020
In the last 30 days there have been slightly more than the count handled by
the top 10 volunteers which is:
Jul 10 2020
Appears to be restarted.
Jun 27 2020
Jun 10 2020
Wow, that worked.
May 15 2020
FWIW, I managed to complete what I wanted to complete, so this is not at all urgent, and I'm happy letting it go to the back burner for some time. I can edit using the old editor, so my main concern is that I like VE for working with tables, and I was surprised this choked, It's not tiny, but far smaller than some tables.
Feb 22 2020
I just tried running it. Although it took a long time to load the first time (30 to 60 seconds) it did load, I used it for a real-live issue and it worked. I tried loading again and this time loaded in a few seconds.
Feb 14 2020
Scratch that, I apparently misread the timestamps. I did have a 504 earlier today, then it work later but it doesn't seem to be working now.
Guessing that someone did something because I've used it in the last couple hours
Feb 8 2020
I just used it successfully as part of the Dr Blofeld CCI - thanks
Nov 8 2019
For what it's worth, I just performed an RD1:
May 27 2019
Sounds great. For what it's worth, I let the individual who originally contacted us know that multiple people were working on resolving this and they seemed impressed that we were jumping on it so diligently.
May 25 2019
I would have guessed that "nazi" on the list would pick up "nazis" but the attached screenshot suggests otherwise (if that works, i'never uploaded an image here before)
Per this discussion:
Mar 26 2019
Looking good so far, thanks.
Mar 25 2019
I do see a new addition, good sign.
Just a quick comment to emphasize that addressing copyright issues is far easier when looking at them close to contemporaneously. They become more difficult as they get older. I'll explain if this isn't obvious.
Aug 24 2018
And I feel bad, that I haven't even thanked whomever is responsible for a timely solution. Thanks, it will make the process better.
I see this is marked as resolved.
Aug 20 2018
Oct 6 2017
Jul 18 2017
Thanks, my limited test now works.
Jul 17 2017
If I may make one more related point - when I copy and paste an article title to use in some way, I often copy it from the top of the article, but sometimes. I copy it from the url.
Thanks for the incredibly timely response (maybe we could use you at OTRS).
Aug 23 2016
I've thought a little bit more about the privacy concern. I can appreciate the decision not to publish a database of search queries because of the realization that people occasionally, either deliberately or accidentally, included personal information in the search query. However, I think that case can be distinguished from this case in two ways.
Aug 22 2016
I do get that there could be some issues with the search string. Certainly not a problem in most circumstances but there can be a situation where it could be problematic. I don't see such an issue with page number although I recognize that having to convert the string to remove the search and leave in the page number may be tricky.
This is potentially important. I had begun using this feature to convert their Google books URLs but I abandon it after getting complaints that the converted URLs did not identify the page. I had originally requested that the conversion automatically leave up the page parameter so it would be easy to fill in, but it seems like it would be better if the URL took you directly to the page. I don't know the history that led to the decision to switch to the base URL and perhaps it's not something that can be easily undone because they may be other problems of which I am unaware, but as constituted the reference conversion option is useless to me.
Jun 29 2016
My next test failed. I'll put together something a bit more formal.
I see this is marked as resolved, but I just tried it but did not seem to work the way I had expected.
May 9 2016
This change would be enormously helpful for editors trying to improve references. Many editors leave a bare url plus a page number (or range of pages). Converting a pure bare url to a proper reference is often trivial (just click on Convert), but the existence of page numbers makes it a tedious task. Automatically including the page and pages field would make this much easier.
Jul 6 2015
A reader reported the same error with a single article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Olympians