Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-29/News and notes

Discuss this story

Will monobook still be an option after the switch over, or am I going to have to relearn where everything is all over again like I do every time Microsoft updates its software? I like the default version and I am really not looking forward to the change, but I see no indication that the old version (or should I say the current version since the switchover hasn't happened yet) will remain an option for the editors. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article said that Vector will become the default skin - not that it will become the only skin.

According to the announcement, Monobook will still be available: "Logged-in users will have the option to return to the classic functionality using a one-click process."

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's about time for a change...not that I really like Vector anyway. I'd still be using Monobook. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you log in and go to "my preferences" and then "appearances", there are many skins to choose from, including the old "classic" which was pre-monobook. So I expect they'll keep monobook around :) You can also preview the vector skin by selecting it. It's not a major change -- the search box moves, etc. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much have the various gadgets and scripts been tested with Vector? If the ones I use don't work, then I'll be sticking to Monbook -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the gadgets have been tested and most of the popular scripts have already been converted months ago. If you have a tool that is not yet working, report it on WP:VP/T and someone will probably take care of it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Leno also joked about Wikipedia overheating in one of his monologues. Needless to say, noone was laughing at his lame jokes. [1] -- œ ^™ 23:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"For a while there, people had nowhere to go for phony, inaccurate information." Really Jay, that was the best you could do? How about: "The server was allegedly located in Amsterdam, which is the capital of Italy"?

From the message these "freedom fighters" sent out... "We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!" This... worries me considerably. They already have access to some admin accounts? ALI ^{nom nom} 16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Some believe that due to the large number of people contacted (there are about 1400 people with Admin rights on en.wikipedia) it is inevitable that at least a few fell for this. Others (including me) believe that everyone who gained Admin rights are the type of person who would not send their password to a stranger. In any case, this wording is typical salespeak -- make it sound as if others have taken the bait, so the mark is comforted by numbers -- so it isn't definite proof of anything. -- llywrch (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was apparently in one of the original emails. I don't know. Who would be crazy enough to do something like this? What are they trying to do? ...Eh, it probably doesn't matter. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Special:Statistics, there are ~1700 accounts with administrator access. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because I'm a new admin, and so not jaded and cynical (!) but I've not heard from the freedom fighters... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least a few admins who did not receive these messages; I don't think there's any systematic way to know how many of the admins got them. There appear to be many who did and a few who did not, with no special pattern. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never got these messages, however I do know that they were sent out previously. Not everyone has email on, of course. Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]