User talk:UncleDouggie

Edit filter

I have restored edit filter permissions to your account as requested. Soap 00:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:AzaToth/twinklewarn.js

User:AzaToth/twinklewarn.js has been updated as you requested. I ran a quick check and it looks good. Thanks! -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 15:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I just noticed that the latest warning flowed with the prior one. Looks like an extra line break is needed in the source. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 15:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Fixed (diff). Please merge back to your working copy and double check. I wasn't sure whether we needed the extra newline before the notice or after, but a test ([1]) against an existing talk page seems to confirm that the extra newline before teh notice is what was needed. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 15:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Your fix looks good. Thanks! —UncleDouggie (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I've rolled back the Twinkle change as requested. Do you still want the AIV change applied? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the AIV change is good. I'll keep working on Twinkle as I have time. —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Lightdarkness/aiv.js has been updated. ([2]). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 18:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Simplified delta time

I saw that you made some changes to the WP:Comments in Local Time gadget. It might be a bit late for a suggestion, but I used to work in a hospital environment where patient age was displayed in either hours, days, weeks, months, or years (but never mixed units), with threshold of 2 for each step. Extending this down to minutes and possibly seconds, one of the the following formats would be selected:

• 0 ... 119 seconds ago
• 2 ... 119 minutes ago
• 2 ... 47 hours ago
• 2 ... 13 days ago
• 2 ... 8 weeks ago
• 2 ... 23 months ago
• 2 ... n years ago

This provided a simple display giving a concise rough indication age, and might eliminate the need for more complicated options in the config object. Thoughts?

BTW, thanks for the work you are doing on twinkle. I've been intending to jump in to see if I can help with some of the scripts, but it may take a bit to come up to speed with these scripts. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This was exactly my motivation for making the changes. The behavior you describe is achieved to the day level by setting both dropDays and dropMonths to non-zero values. Drop days is the point at which the transition from days to months occurs and dropMonths is the transition to years. I personally find values of 93 and 24 to be pleasing, which is what I used in the documentation update. I use 93 instead of 90 to make sure that anything marginally less than 3 months is never truncated down to 2 months in the worst case. It could be more complex in allowing a user to select both a mixed mode and a cutoff threshold, but that seemed a bit out control.
To implement your full suggestion, I would need to add minutes, hours and weeks. I kind of like the idea of weeks. Minutes and hours are also attractive; however, I've grown accustomed to being able to search talk pages for "today (" or "yesterday (" to pull up all recent additions. Although, I could do the same thing with "hours (" and "minutes(" instead. Seconds is too much for this application. I wonder if users will find "17 hours ago" more or less desirable than "Today"?
Adding settings for minutes, hours and weeks does seem a bit out of control, which is why you propose having set cutoffs. However, having individual settings would allow people to go straight from days to months if they don't like thinking in terms of weeks. We would still need some master setting to enable this mode to keep backwards compatibility with the mixed mode for those currently using the gadget. Although, no one ever really asked for the current behavior. What about adding the individual cutoffs because they need to be in the code anyway, but give them decent default values. They would then all be enabled or disabled by a master setting. For the master setting, I could repurpose the dateDifference setting to give it three values: off, short, full. I would map the current true/false values to full/off for compatibility. It seems a bit odd though for "short" to produce "17 hours ago" while "full" produces "today". Maybe a separate yesterday/today setting instead?
(I took the liberty of splitting this into two sections.)
Interesting idea. That would have the advantage of simple options for canned preferences while still allowing full flexibility for those who prefer it. There is also a subtle difference in the way calculations would be performed - calendar day or 24 hour day. Perhaps a non-zero hours and/or minutes cutoff would trigger date/time calculations, while having both values zero would yield date-only calculations, -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 08:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

On Twinkle, I'm running some tests on the best way to update both the common module and the warning module. My plan is to get the warning module as clean as possible so it can be used as a template for the other modules. I'm currently focusing on the jQuery parsing. You could help by deciphering the way the completed.action is handled to dismiss the window and reload the page. I desperately need to take a wikibreak for a few days, but of course I've been saying that for the last 2 days. Don't worry if I disappear for a short while. —UncleDouggie (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

All the work you've been doing is much appreciated. Today, I've been looking at the revert function in the fluff module User:Tcncv/twinklefluffTest.js and have an early working prototype (with much remaining cleanup work). As I was neither familiar with the existing code, had little background with the API, and limited experience debugging complex javascript, it's been an uphill learning experience. The User:AzaToth/morebits.js module has two classes - Wikipedia.api and Wikipedia.wiki to handle gets and puts. Wikipedia.wiki is pretty complicated, but Wikipedia.api is a fairly simple API wrapper and my changes make use of that class. After getting my initial changes working, I noticed that the edit API has an "undoafter" parameter that together with the "undo" parameter may allow for reverting multiple revisions without doing a full-text retrieve and save. Might speed things up on large pages and simplify the code at the same time. I also have an understanding of what it will take to properly handle edit conflicts.
As for the page refresh, this is presently done by setting Wikipedia.actionCompleted.redirect = wgPageName and using the Wikipedia.api wrapper. When the Wikipedia.api detects that the last action has completed and the last callback returns (without initiating another action), it calls Wikipedia.actionCompleted.event, which will eventually set window.location after a delay to allow things to settle. If we convert your current API calls to use the Wikipedia.api wrapper (minimal changes) we can take advantage of this. I'll look at prototyping the change in the warnings module in the next day or two if you like.
There is probably also room for wrapping the wrapper with a "page" class that allows the main routines to simply get the page, modify the text, set the summary, and save with all the details of query parameters, edit tokens, timestamps, handled within the class. The class would then expose simple actions like:
• Methods like:
• Get(pagename, callback))
• Save(callbback)
• FindPriorUserRevision(callback)
• RevertToReveision(callback)
• Properties like:
• pagename
• text
• editSummary
• latestRevision
• latestUser
• priorUserRevision
• priorUser
• LastResult
• LastMessage
The class would focus on functions that make the mainline code smaller and easier to read, understand, and maintain. Some application-specific functions could be included to handle tasks like finding the appropriate insertion point on a page, adding a section heading, or other operations where we find that the same 10-20 lines of code are currently duplicated in two or more places.
For now, I'll concentrate on just getting the API conversion done. Unfortunately, my day job has its usual crisis-of-the-day that is competing for attention, so I'll be juggling. Cheers. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 08:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to seem too intrusive, but just thought I'd mention that I have written a Wikipedia.editPage function that should simplify editing pages using the API a little bit. It doesn't handle undos, but I'm sure that could be arranged. It's in User:This, that and the other/morebits.js, and I have asked User talk:Amalthea (the de facto maintainer of Twinkle, while AzaToth is absent - which is normally the case, although he appears to have returned for the moment) to apply the changes to the main codebase. While not absolutely robust and failsafe (yet), it should aid anyone wishing to convert Twinkle, Friendly, or other morebits-based modules to use the edit API. I have implemented it in User:This, that and the other/twinklespeedy.js thus far. I hope you find this useful. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It's no intrusion at all, we need to work on this together. Your new code is a good start to fixing the HTML 5 problem, although I don't think it will support all the Twinkle modules such as the ones that need to look at a lot of revision information. The bigger problem I have is that the whole ajax.js library has been deprecated in favor of jQuery.ajax. Therefore, I've been trying to drop the ajax.js library as much as possible when I do updates. I still have some in the ARV tool in fact, but I didn't change that portion. Redoing things twice doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Perhaps we should bring User talk:Amalthea in on this discussion as well. I'm happy to do it here or on any other page that might be appropriate. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I just dropped a note on my talk page (here regarding some additional changes I have in User:Tcncv/twinkleMorebitsTest.js. Thould we centralize this discussion, say at WT:Twinkle? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Centralizing is fine with me. We might as well start with the ajax.js issue. I'll post it there. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussion has been centralized at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Code_restructuring. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the e-mail. However, I don't think I need the entire source of Twinkle at the moment. I am quite content with downloading from AzaToth's base (or elsewhere) as I modify scripts. Thanks for the offer all the same, though. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC help

I missed you IRC invitation until now, as I took the evening off for other activities. Back now for a bit, but I have to admit I will be an IRC newby. I've started by adding the Chatzilla plugin to Firefox and am trying out my connection now. Any suggestions on network and channel? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Presently connected to #wikipedia-en as Tom_N. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I just got in. I'll be online in about 5 minutes. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? A real-time PC "discussion" sounds like something that there should be a law against. I know that everyone is sick of the edit conflicts, but wow, just wow. I hope the IRC server survives. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

twinklecommon.js

I had a go at reconciling your changes to twinklecommon.js with mine. After a while I found it was too difficult. Obviously you have written a lot of good code, however, I am not in favour of some of your logic. In particular, I'm not a fan of having the separate Wikipedia.page.get and Wikipedia.page.save functions. The code at the moment is very hard to follow, and it seems to add unnecessary complexity. Don't forget that we are volunteer programmers who are building an interface which not only needs to be simple enough for "drive-by" programmers to pick up quickly, but which needs a fair degree of power as well, and we need to follow the KISS principle, for our own sake and that of others. That's why I initially wrote a single Wikipedia.page.edit function: in 95% of cases, when page content is retrieved, an edit is the desired outcome. I understand that your coding still allows for this, but it adds quite a lot of overhead, making the code rather difficult to read, follow, use, and troubleshoot.

My other great concern with Wikipedia.page is its scoping. Currently an awful lot of properties are being added to it "ad-hoc"; these are properties which do not belong to the concept of a "page", but the concept of a "revision" or "edit request" or "error situation". The older model, and (to a degree) Wikipedia.page.edit (after I made Wikipedia.page into a class), had two simple levels of scoping: the "page" level (page title, and the flag followRedirect), and the "request" level (the self object, with all the request-specific stuff there). The scoping of the statelem bothers me a touch as well. Statelems are request-specific; you have made them page-specific. This is one of the reasons why I found the reconciling too difficult; I couldn't decide how to rectify the situation here. When an edit is made, there are so many layers on the call stack that it's hard to know what should be done where, and what will happen.

Anyway, if you do decide to maintain your get/save/... model, I will mention some of the issues I uncovered while reviewing your code, so that you can fix them:

• line 1584 (the latest version from March 1, 2011 that you uploaded): rvlimit=1 is not needed; it actually makes the response bigger by about 100 bytes (!)
• 1610: a big problem here: this is very, very inflexible. No way to specify custom parameters, like 'prependtext' (which would be very useful for page tagging) and 'appendtext' (useful for user talk page stuff), nor the four possible values for the 'watchlist' parameter, etc. etc.
• 1649: this error message is never displayed, as it is overwritten in line 1654 - besides, redirecting is not an error state, so it shouldn't use error()
• 1653: the property index pageName won't work; should be the string literal "titles"
• throughout: check spelling and capitalisation of "success"/"onsuccess"/"onSuccess" (you would have caught this pretty quickly anyway, I'm sure!)
• 1688: self.pageName in string literal by mistake
• 1563: Status message is too low-level: something more general like "Processing page _____" would be better

However, before fixing, please consider my remarks above.

Sorry to bother you with such a long and rambling talk page message... Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Separating get() and save() vs. using edit(): For a caller, only one line of code is different. For separate methods, at the end of the get() callback, the client does object.save(); with optional callback parameters. For the edit() method, the client replaces this code with return (true);. I believe that explicitly calling save() makes client programs more intuitive while also being general enough to cover 100% of cases instead of only 95% for edit(). Complexity in Wikipedia.page isn't a critical issue. Anyone that will be seriously editing that code should be able to figure out either method easily. For the edit() case, the only advantage is that it tacks the entire save() method onto the end of get_success(). That seems like a very minor improvement in readable to me. Users developing new scripts are most likely going to model their code on a working client instead of reading Wikipedia.page from scratch. Having the explicit save() in the clients will make it easier for others to understand the proper usage of the class.
• Scoping: The class needs all the properties to offload the gory details of managing an edit from a client. If your problem is with the name of the class, I'm willing to change it. Would Wikipedia.pageAPIManager be better? The ad-hoc properties are easy to add to the prototype, the current version isn't meant in any way to be final code. I don't think that hiding properties in the API objects that aren't used by those objects makes the code any better and it violates encapsulation.
• statelem: I know this code needs lots of help. Please fix it. I was just trying to get something running to prove the concept.
• Code review: Thanks for the detailed review! You're welcome to go fix all those problems. I'll work on whatever you don't get to at 01:00 UTC. Please make sure to start with my latest copy. —UncleDouggie (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Firebug

Further to your post on VPT, Firebug has a pretty good (but not 100%) version available for FF4, just use the official website rather than Mozilla Addons to try it out. I have it installed at the moment, and it's almost there bug wise. :) Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 19:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was a bit scared by the "alpha" designation and I figured that I have enough bugs of my own to deal with. I'll give it a try. —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

quick note

Just a quick note, in any twinkle modules you modify, could you please change the summary ad(s) (it might appear twice) to "([[WP:TW|TW]])"? This seems to be what is desired, and saves precious edit summary characters. (I'll forget if I don't mention it now...) Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've already done twinklewarn.js. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Cannot see a problem here, I was trying to point out that this is exactly the sort of claim made by Conservapedia on a regular basis. Please think carefully before reverting edits that are not obvious vandalism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yikes! I didn't even know I made that revert. I haven't been on Jimbo's talk page in a long time. It came up in my watchlist and I must have fallen victim to the darn page jumping bug introduced with the MediaWiki 1.17 update that can cause you to click one place and then have a different link scroll into that spot before the click is registered. I have no idea why the confirmation page didn't show. Maybe I just happened to close my watchlist at the same time. Anyway, I'm sorry for the trouble and I've undone the revert. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, no problem. I didn't mean the Conservapedia comment to be rude, but was disappointed by the implicit assumption made by the IP that Wikipedia articles are not written in good faith.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Yaris678/Deny automated recognition

Hi UncleDougie,

I notice that we have a shared interest in semi-automated anti-vandal tools. I would be interested to get your opinion on / contribution to User:Yaris678/Deny automated recognition.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:Yaris678/Deny_automated_recognition#Need_a_holistic_approach. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I have revised by essay quite a bit now. I think it gets more to the point of what I am trying to say... and hopefully it won't be mistaken for a straight-up proposal to reduce the number of warnings required. Yaris678 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Yeah, I didn't expect to win him over, rather I hoped to make the point clear for others. But your point is well made. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I drafted a new RfC. Please take a look and comment. SJ+ 20:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Archived_citations_2#Comments_by_UncleDouggie. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up

I cannot thank you enough for the eye candy on the Pending Changes analysis. The more we get this kind of thing the better. Steven Walling at work 19:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Your plots at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Analysis really helps clarify the situation. Yaris678 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Popups

Are they working okay for you now? :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your post at WP:VPT, I'll guess yes, but from using Lupin's loader. Shouldn't really be necessary (I think I had one other user do that), your problem was (I suspect) simply a mistake here, in that // is not valid for css, you have to use the multiline comments (/* and */) in css. But whatever works :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot that for a moment in my haste. It's hard to even see what I'm doing with bug ugly stuck pop-ups plastered all over my pages. Thanks. I think that I'll just stick with what works since I also won't need to muck with it if they make more changes. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, although hopefully (ha) the next change will be getting a proper fix to the ResourceLoader (or whatever is breaking this) - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

PC/SPI

The main problem is that people approve the edits based on a vandalism/no vandalism check.

My normal strategy against a repetitive sock-puppeteer is simple: revert all of his edits, semi-protect the targets, and wait for the material to be reinserted. By semi-protecting the targets, it forces him to make an account and auto-confirm. Once he restores material, I can quickly identify him and every edit he made. I block the new account, revert the new edits, semi-protect whatever articles he used to get auto-confirmed, and go again. Some guys keep going forever, but at least I'm able to keep them from being very successful. Usually a few passes is enough to get him to give up (or to get so smart I can't detect him, which effectively solves the problem).

With PC, he makes an anonymous edit, and it gets approved. By the time I figure out that it's him back again, he's switched his IP, and there's no named account for me to use to group his edits. Makes life much, much harder, and basically gives the puppeteer free rein.—Kww(talk) 06:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly a case in which semi-protection is preferred to PC. It seems to me that even if PC was widely deployed, you could still semi-protect the pages in question for long enough to deal with the problem. It's only a problem if PC completely replaces semi-protection. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The cases where I restored semi-protection in order to stop socking caused a reaction that convinced me that most proponents view PC as a replacement for semi. My objection is to the mechanism itself: why revamp protection with a scheme that doesn't address socking problem, when there are schemes available which do address socking and are easier to implement?—Kww(talk) 14:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Expert Participation Survey

Hi, thanks for your message, I was aware of the GLAM project (and I actually attended the two GLAM events in Paris/London in 2010). Liam did a great job to help spread the word among GLAM partners about this initiative. I hope we will have a good response from people at cultural institutions before we close the survey (April 15). Cheers, DarTar (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Using it on 100,000 articles with one non-confirmed edit every 10 days is similar to using it on 1,000 articles with 10 non-confirmed edits per day." - You may want to check your math. I assume you meant 100 articles, which the next person commenting also assumed. =) CycloneGU (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

$\frac {100,000 \text { articles}}{10 \text { days/edit/article}} = 10,000 \text { edits/day} = 1,000 \text { articles * } 10 \text { edits/day/article}$UncleDouggie (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Am I completely misreading that? Man, was I reading that the wrong way. For some reason I read that as "100,000 articles with one non-confirmed edit daily". My bad. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I prefer to make people think sometimes. It tends to focus attention. :-) —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your message about rewriting parts of Twinkle as I type, so no rush on this. Just thought you'd be interested in this as Beeblebrox named you one of the most active PC discussion contributors. There is presently debate on whether mediation should go ahead, which I don't go into much here as several pages all go into detail. CycloneGU (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to save you having to go back to WP:RPP, I've had to decline your request, as the software only allows pending changes to be applied to the mainspace; the option box doesn't appear for userpages. Sorry! GedUK  11:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea

Since you're not busy or anything... Jimbo asked about how he could a) see if he missed anything on his watchlist and b) know which watchlisted edits were more likely to be vandalism. The second part seems like an ideal project for CBNG or STiki, as part of a .js tool that I thought you might have an idea about or interest in. It could add the CBNG neural network score, or STiki metadata score (or both) next to each watchlist edit. Perhaps it would color code edits by reliability, or flag them after a certain threshold. Theoretically, users could even set their own threshold, either globally or for individual articles. I have no idea what it would take to implement this, but as long as there was full access to the CBNG/STiki servers (which might require moving them somewhere more robust) then every edit could get scored in this way. I mentioned you at the discussion, since this is your territory. Cheers! Ocaasi c 23:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I replied at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Smart watchlist proposal. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Great work!

 Twinkle Barnstar For the many hours of fantastic, dedicated work you put into organizing and executing the Twinkle rewrite, I decorate you with the Gold Vitruvian Barnstar with Twinkle Head, custom-built for the occasion. Thanks! Amalthea 22:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
My first custom-built barnstar and it looks awesome! Thank you. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll second that. You disclaim intentional uncle-hood, but you are very much like those fun-loving male relatives who never tell you what to do and often come baring surprising gifts and tales of far-off adventures [in coding]. Cheers! Ocaasi c 10:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Javascript Question

Hi UncleDouggie. Sorry to bother you again; I have one last question - does detailed documentation for built-in mediawiki javascript functions/global variables exist? and if so, where can I find it? Thanks in advance, FASTILY (TALK) 22:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a decent list at [3]. You might also look here, although it has a fair amount of outdated stuff. —UncleDouggie (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Perfect! Thank you very much!! Best, FASTILY (TALK) 06:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle blacklist

I noticed you removed the Twinkle blacklist from the github tree. What was the plan there - were we going to get it going again using a different method, or get rid of it altogether? — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We're getting rid of it altogether per the link I put in to the discussion at WP:AN. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK. The consensus wasn't clear to me. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on changing tabs to windows

I recently was told to get Internet Explorer 9 and it does a lot of things I don't like. One thing I was able to change, thanks to remembering your advice about Firefox, was opening new windows, not new tabs. I don't like my activities at the top of the screen, but at the bottom. There are many reasons for this. I intend to stick with Explorer, thought this version is almost worse than Firefox.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Game

A discussion about improving the help documentation inspired an idea--Wikipedia tutorials would be best if they were interactive and immersive. The thought of a learning-teaching game came up, one based on a real interface with realistic 'missions'. Would you be interested in providing some feedback or helping work on it? The idea is just getting started and any assistance with the help/policy side, the experienced-editor side, or the coding/game-making side would be great. Cheers, Ocaasi c 00:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Please put your responses at User_talk:Ocaasi/The_Wikipedia_Game to consolidate discussion. Dcoetzee 11:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle, Twinkle, little barnstar

 Twinkle Barnstar The new Twinkle project has clearly been a mammoth task, and this is my recognition of everyone involved (and if I missed anyone, please let me know). The new look and feel, the new features, the prefs GUI, are all great, and rewriting it to use the API sets us up for HTML 5 (if not infinity) and beyond. And considering the wide impact, the implementation went remarkably smoothly - main teething issues solved quickly, and it finally inspired me to upgrade to Firefox 4 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astrology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC bot

I have removed your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service, since you are, unfortunately, inactive. You are most welcome to re-add yourself if you like the e-mails. I hope you are doing good things away from the wiki. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ariel A. Roth

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ariel A. Roth. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:ISO 2852. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon. It's 1-3 June and registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, just mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

Our goals for the event are to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 14:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

smart watchlist.js - import/export settings

Hello, UncleDouggie. You have new messages at User talk:UncleDouggie/smart watchlist.js.
Message added 14:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Need to know which files have the settings so that I can save them manually? Please drop me a {{tb}} when you reply since you don't seem to be active. 14:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure: Request for feedback on Community Fellowship proposal

Hi! I'm contacting you because you have participated or discussed The Wikipedia Adventure learning tutorial/game idea. I think you should know about a current Community Fellowship proposal to create the game with some Wikimedia Foundation support. Your feedback on the proposal would be very much appreciated. I should note that the feedback is for the proposal, not the proposer, and even if the Fellowship goes forward it might be undertaken by presently not-mentioned editors. Thanks again for your consideration.

Cheers, User:Ocaasi 16:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)