Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 11

message: Sorry for my ignorance, but is this how TW supposed to be used (23 edits in one article)? ∴ AlexSm 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple edits? 

message: Does anyone else think it's a bad idea to give us administrators power to delete everything on our watchlists? I can't see why this should be a feature, and it could case tremendous damage if someone compromised my account and deleted literally hundreds or even thousands of pages. Grandmasterka 03:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a simple solution to this: back up your watchlist. Just go to Special:Watchlist/raw and copy the contents of your watchlist into a text file on your computer. That way, if you lose your watchlist for some reason, you can just go back and restore it from that point. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Misunderstood the question, never mind. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 04:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying, why have this at all? If I deleted my whole watchlist, I wouldn't be able to do much, because I would be immediately desysopped and banned until I came with a good explanation and they were sure I was actually... Me. And other administrators would have to restore thousands of pages. I suppose I could keep a list onwiki, but... What's the point of having this feature? Grandmasterka 04:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The danger of deleting an entire watchlist 

message: What is the new 'unlink' tab at the top of the page? Harland1 (t/c) 18:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid to touch it. J-ſtanContribsUser page 02:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and ran it on an image that's only in my userspace, and basically, it comments out the image in question in all instances where it's found.  Here's a diff showing what it did.  As you can see, nothing major.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the purpose of commenting it out? J-ſtanContribsUser page 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just tried it with my sandbox, it didn't show up in my contribs, and its "what links here" is completely unharmed. Weird. J-ſtanContribsUser page 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It only checks backlinks that are in namespace 0 (main) or 100 (image). No other backlinks are changed. The code is at User:AzaToth/twinkleunlink.js. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: While working on page deletions, I've had several opportunities to use this new tab, and I love it. Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlink tab 

message: Do you have to pay to use twinkle? Greenrico09 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Everything on Wikipedia is free content; this includes all user scripts and editing tools. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  Wikipedia is free content, however, you are still welcome and encouraged to make a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twinkle 

message: Twinkle has suddenly stopped working for me, for no apparent reason. Friendly also doesn't work anymore. I have the scripts for both in my monobook.js page, and they worked fine for weeks, but now they don't work. I didn't put this up where the bug reports because I'm not sure if the problem is with Twinkle or my page. Can someone look on my page and help? Thanks. Calvin 1998 (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing a single quote (') and you are using a { where there should be a (. I can't make the appropriate changes for you, but please try it and let me/us know if that fixes the problem. (EhJJ) 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I did that and it's fixed. I just forgot to say that here, because I had a  on my talk page and asked it there too. That's where my answer came from. Calvin 1998 (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twinkle Problems 

message: I've noticed everytime I tag a image for deletion that is in a infobox with   ex: (diff) The caption provided does not display since the image is not presented as a thumbnail, is it possible for TW to instead use the caption parameter? « ₣M₣ » 23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captions 

message: A while ago I reverted somebody who moved Brian Eno to Brian Emo. Today I received a template accusing of vandalism. When asking for an explanation the user said it was automatically generated by TWINKLE. I posted at AN/I, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vandal fighters being accused of vandalism by twinkle and am now posting here as my concern is that good faith vandal fighters could be frightened away. I have never used Twinkle myself and concerns were expressed at AN/I that it might partly be a bug in the system so if someone could please investigate. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened here: You reverted the move, thus making your revert the first edit on the new page (Brian Emo).  When somebody else tagged that page for speedy deletion as vandalism, Twinkle automatically notified the user who first edited the page.  Since you moved the page, and the pages history, you became the first editor of that page, which is why you received the warning.  Sorry if that doesn't make sense, as I can't seem to find the right words today.. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what people said at AN/I and it makes sense but what are we going to do about it? As good faith vandalism reverting should never result in automated vandalism allegations, unless we fix these kind of bugs we will be chasing good faith users away, that is my concern and that is why i am posting here, i don't want to see this happen to much less experienced users who then walk away frioom the project in disgust. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand.  Honestly, I don't know, but I don't think that the script can avoid this.  The user who tagged the page should have been more thorough before tagging the page (like checking the pages' history) and then unchecking the box that says "Notify if possible" (which would have tagged the page, and not notified you). - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well if the script can avoid this then it certainly should but I realise that automated systems are complex, and I see on this project page that users need to take responsibility for how they use this script, I think the user who did this has realised his mistake and hopefully won't do it again. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it would work to change the template warning placed by Twinkle when that tag is used. I know it hasn't been that long since the templates were differentiated by reason, and it seems this could be an issue in the one used discovered through actual use. A statement could be added to  simply acknowledging in parenthesis something along the lines of "(If you did not move the article to this location, but restored it following such a move, please disregard this notice.)" --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure it could be added, but I don't think that is necessary.  People just need to do their homework before adding speedy tags. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I hear your point, Rjd, I think it is a good idea of MOON'S. from now on I will immediately speedy any vandalism generated redirects such as Brian Emo but my concern is to prevent other users falling into the same issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: TWINKLE has two buttons to tag articles under G3: "Pure vandalism" and "Pagemove". Surely it would be enough to stop the program from notifying the creator if the latter is used? I think it already does this for U1. Hut 8.5 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be difficult because the notify limit configuration os only based on the normalized criteria (g3). →AzaToth 20:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  False vandalism claim for reverting a vandalism move 

message: Can you please add  to the list of warning templates? Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look into to do a synck with WP:UTM. →AzaToth 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Coolio. --Closedmouth (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  uw-username 

message: I have been a twinkle user for a long time. Last week, for reasons of personal privacy, I dropped my old username and started using a new one. Now I can't use Twinkle as it says my account is too new. Fair enough, I understand why that is, but I cannot find it documented anywhere how long the restriction will apply to my new account. Can someone enlighten me please? --TimTay (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're autoconfirmed after 4 days. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. By freaky coincidence your reply came 3 days, 23 hours, 58 minutes after my account was created. Sure enough a couple of minutes later when my account was 4 days old Twinkle started working. It would be nice to add this to the documentation. --TimTay (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user time limit 

message: Maybe you could add :Template:Drmmt to Single Issue Notices?  I know it is similar to one that is already there (:Template:uw-delete1) but I like that one because it is specific.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - this one should be added.  Maintenance templates aren't content per se, and I for one wouldn't put  for someone removing maintenance tags without explanation.  Especially when half the time, people removing maintenance tags without explanation just need a you-may-not-have-realized-it-but kind of message, not an "official" warning that escalates to a block.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only using Uw-templates. →AzaToth 19:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we just move it to :Template:Uw-drmmt then? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I looked at the other templates in the "uw" pseudo-namespace, and it appears reasonable to move drmmt into that space.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I could have used :Template:Drmmt half a dozen times today. Even if it doesn't get into TW (and I hope it does!), thanks for letting me know it exists. --Fabrictramp (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto here.  Bookmarking and wishing it could go in Twinkle too :) Collectonian (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please make sure it follows the format for uw-templates, and make a better name for it. Also make sure it's not redundant to any other uw-template. →AzaToth 01:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template in warning box 

message: How did this happen? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably just used the code for the edit summary. Oysterguitarist 04:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edit 

message: I tried to configure TW on my page, but I don't think I did it right.  How do I set it so that it does not watch pages of users I warn?  Cirt (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be configured correctly. Have you tried bypassing your browser cache on your monobook.js page? (Ctrl + F5 in most browsers.) That should fix the problem. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: , but that didn't seem to do it, it still watches new user talk pages I warn, I tested it at a subpage of my user space.  Cirt (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  It looks properly configured to me. Try completely clearing your cache. Firefox lets you do that form Tools->Clear Private Data. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 04:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I just had to restart Firefox to purge my user CSS earlier this afternoon. Glad it's not something wrong with my machine. :) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 02:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: Starting today (or maybe last yesterday), whenever I have reverted vandalism, instead of opening in a new tab, Twinkle has tried to open the user's talk page in a new window (which FireFox blocked).  I haven't change anything in my configuration settings, so I was wondering if the script was changed to no longer open in a new tab? Collectonian (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Script Change? 

message: Why do these comments always come out in italics, and is there any way to do anything about it? Also, is it possible to remove the default "full stop" at the end of ARV/RPP/warnings/edit-summaries, to enable one to use ! and ? freely... thanks! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of ARV I just popped in to congratulate the creator, the ARV comment when you try to do it to yourself made me laugh. SGGH speak! 13:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning/ARV "extra comments" + full stops 

message: I have removed JSL from morebits.js now. It's available as an gadget, and if you are not using FF, you might need to add it from there. →AzaToth 13:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  JSL