User talk:AmandaNP

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

fr-3Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau avancé de français.

es-1Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español.

Search user languages

User:DeltaQuad/Menu

Contact information
Email: Email me (Email rules) IRC: @wikipedia/DeltaQuad, under nicks similar to DeltaQuad or Izhidez. (See IRC channel at the top for my home)

Archives

ACC Interface

Just wanted to let you know, in case you didn't realize it, that your "homepage" link at https://accounts.wmflabs.org/team.php points to DeltaQuad rather than User:DeltaQuad. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, I sent a pull request to fix this, and some of my information - see: [1] SQL^{Query me!} 20:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 1

Updates associated with DannyS712's Global watchlist script:

General announcements

• Management has migrated to phabricator; to report a bug or request a feature, please create a new task with the script's tag
• Message translation has been reduced; for common messages that are already translated in mediawiki core, the system translations are used, in order to reduce duplication of efforts

Recent additions

• New pages are shown at the start of a site's feed
• Log entries are shown at the end of a site's feed
• Basic validation has been added to user settings, applied before saving
• Site validation has also been added; a site (excluding unique projects like wikidata, meta, commons, etc.) is considered to be valid if it is the form of "language.project", where both the language code and project name are valid. It does not, however, check that the actual site is valid; only that it could be. In other words, even though sco.wiktionary refers to a site that doesn't exist, it is considered valid, because sco is a valid language code (sco.wikipedia is a working site) and wiktionary is a valid project.

Announcements

• BREAKING CHANGE: Backwards compatibility supporting the use of sites as *.*.org (like 'en.wikipedia.org' or 'meta.wikimedia.org'), deprecated in version 1.7.5, will be removed soon; all sites should now be saved as *.* (like 'de.wikinews' or 'fr.wikisource')
• BREAKING CHANGE: Storing user sites as window.GlobalWatchlistSites, deprecated in version version 1.11.11, will be removed soon; all settings should be stored in the window.GlobalWatchlistConfig object
• Both of these breaking changes will be implemented alongside version 4.0; until then, any use of the config page (m:Special:BlankPage/GlobalWatchlistConfig) will result in saving settings in the newest format

Next release

Version 4.0 should be released in around a week. It will include the new features mentioned above, as well as removal of backwards compatibility for settings and sites.

I've sent this first message to users that participated in the discussion at m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Watchlists/Revive Crosswatch tool or otherwise shown interest in the script. To subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates, see the distribution list.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Global watchlist user script: About • Updates • Code

COI edit request from behind a blocked IP range 7-OCT-2019

Hello! There is an edit request at User_talk:158.169.40.9 from a user who is behind an IP which you had blocked last year. I understand that requests from blocked users may be disregarded, but was unsure how to proceed when the block is on an IP range, and not on a specific editor. May I answer the request? Please advise. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  12:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a potential proxy, so if your willing to take responsibility for the edit, go for it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-41

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• The abuse filter function now has a faster parser. This is to shorten the waiting time when you save an edit. [2]

Problems

• There is a problem in the visual editor when you copy or delete text with footnotes. It will be fixed soon. [3]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 October. It will be on all wikis from 10 October (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 9 October at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Community Wishlist Survey has a new format. It will focus on wikis that typically get less support. It will probably go back to the normal format next year. It is not decided exactly how it will work this year. You can leave feedback.
• The URL of the Wikimedia wiki main pages could be changed. This is because the current URLs cause several problems. For example https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page would be https://www.wikidata.org/ instead. You can tell the developers if this would cause problems for your wiki.
• There is a new technical community newsletter. You can read more about the work of Wikimedia's technical community. Subscribe to get the information in the future.
• Outreachy is an internship program for groups who are underrepresented in free and open-source software. There are seven Wikimedia projects about coding, documentation and quality assurance in the next round. Persons who fit the criteria can apply. The last day to apply is 5 November.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Just curious

Why was the RfA of RexxS sent to crat chat, and the RfA of Greenman (with a higher support/oppose ratio, and rising for the last days) not? I haven't seen an RfA going up from 50 to 61. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I was also curious if you had considered sending this to a wider discussion. What weighting (if any) did you apply to those whose sole oppose rationale mentioned COI editing but failed to actually provide any evidence of controversial edits? I found these to be particularly unconvincing and indicative of a pile-on. –xeno^talk 22:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

So next question: could the crats decide they want to chat about it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s precedent for that. Certainly a closing statement at least was indicated here. –xeno^talk 22:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

So next question: even without a precedent, could the crats (or one crat to begin) say that the unique RfA might profit from more eyes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I mean, sure, yes, with my bureaucrat hat on: I think it would have benefited from a bureaucrat discussion. However if DeltaQuad doesn’t want to send it there, I respect their decision but suggest a detailed closing rationale be provided. –xeno^talk 22:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)