This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).
At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, I edited the description of an RfC as Legobot picked up an introductory note as the RfC description rather than the RfC statement itself. [1] Legobot then reverted that edit, going back to the introductory note. [2] Except for specialized cases like anti-vandalism bots, I do not believe that bots should be reverting edits made by actual human editors. It's been fixed now by moving the introductory note lower, but this still probably should be looked at.
(On an unrelated topic, thanks for running for the Board. I thought your statements were very well on point indeed, and hope to see you get a seat.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
#p-namespaces
should be updated to use the
mw.util.addPortletLink
function instead. Gadgets that style this id should consider also targeting #p-associated-pages
, the new id for this row.
Examples are available.
[3]
[4]Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
23:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi.
First, kudos to you and the other candidates for stepping up to represent the community this way.
With the size of the community, I have no doubt you'll have lots of people having lots of opinions. But as I believe in transparency, and in positive reinforcement, I just wanted to share my thought process with you.
For me, I don't hate the WMF at all. I think they serve several important purposes. But I've been concerned about the pushes of late to add features which aren't "nuts and bolts" useful. Making things easier for our editors and readers is great. Adding features to cater to trying to pull in disinterested editors, or trying to make wikipedia interfaces look like familiar social media interfaces - no, please no. And I've really not liked how wmf-related discussions have become more and more closed to the anonymous editing community. For example, while I don't necessarily oppose the idea of a UCoC - the processes involved in its creation and implementation have been very concerning.
So anyway, I went through all the material, watched the videos, read the notes and all the rest. The compass tool was interesting as well.
I narrowed to three, then to two. A few decisions were easy, most were tough. And in the end, I ranked you first.
Your positions on the tech side of things were strong in your favour.
I also felt that, though everyone seemed to be reading their responses from a written page (a good idea to be sure), listening to you read them, you seemed to me to clearly believe everything you said, these weren't just an attempt to try to say the "right things", or to appeal to a demographic.
I like your idea of a bottom up approach, though I do think there are times when someone needs to step in to cut the gordian knot, or in some instances, to help guide.
And as I kept reading your responses, I kept wishing you said more about the openness of the internet and protection of privacy and protection from oppression, etc. (basically the things which seemed very clear in User:Fjmustak's statements.) And then I come here and see your "free culture" userbox, and laughed, thinking "where was that in your statements"? lol
Anyway, I've rambled on enough. I just thought I would share some of my thoughts. (I considered a lot more things from the statements than just what I've shared here, but this is long enough as it is : )
I wish you well, and thanks again : ) - jc37 21:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Legoktm! Sorry to continue to be a broken record, but it's really disheartening to see that the community consensus to trial semi-protection at TFA has apparently still not been honored, more than a year after Jc37 closed the discussion. You offered to BRFA it, so the ball remains in your court. Any updates since March? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
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
Changes later this week
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
01:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
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
templatelinks
table are now being dropped: tl_namespace
and tl_title
. Any queries that rely on these fields need to be changed to use the new normalization field called tl_target_id
. See
T299417 for more information. This is part of
normalization of links tables.
[7]
[8]Changes later this week
Future changes
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
MediaWiki message delivery 22:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Am I correct that you used your meta:System administrators abilities to make this minor text tweak to a user script here at enWiki? ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Kunal. I am surprised and dismayed that you did not get a seat on the board. Maybe Mike Peel will be able to bridge the gap as you shared many intentions. Please do try again next year, and thank you for all the support you already lend to the volunteer community, especially NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The photos of Elizabeth II from September 19's TFA still seem to be protected on Commons ( commons:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en), despite not being on the MP or in MP staging areas. Do you know why this is? — Goszei ( talk) 22:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
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
rel
attribute of links. Further details are in
T315209.Changes later this week
.json
will be treated as JSON, just like they already are in the User and MediaWiki namespaces.
[14]Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
MediaWiki message delivery 00:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Thanks for making a new RFA voting history tool! {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
You really want them here? Well, ok. I've only looked at my own results.
Two false positives:
Less seriously, it's unable to parse most of my RFA edits at all. I expect that of this sort of tally-counter, since I almost always omit bolded votewords. (I like to pretend I'm persuading other participants in a debate instead of just bolding a vote for the closer to count; I've come to accept how much bots hate me for it.) On the other hand:
Whitespace in the "old" field isn't getting trimmed; compare "Rebecca,Ambi", " Rebecca,Ambi ", and "Rebecca, Ambi". The last seems like it'd be a common error; seen in the wild at WT:RFA#An update by SandyGeorgia as [15] (a poor example to illustrate the bug, since neither of the old usernames were actually renamed to the new one). — Cryptic 15:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).
At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, I edited the description of an RfC as Legobot picked up an introductory note as the RfC description rather than the RfC statement itself. [1] Legobot then reverted that edit, going back to the introductory note. [2] Except for specialized cases like anti-vandalism bots, I do not believe that bots should be reverting edits made by actual human editors. It's been fixed now by moving the introductory note lower, but this still probably should be looked at.
(On an unrelated topic, thanks for running for the Board. I thought your statements were very well on point indeed, and hope to see you get a seat.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
#p-namespaces
should be updated to use the
mw.util.addPortletLink
function instead. Gadgets that style this id should consider also targeting #p-associated-pages
, the new id for this row.
Examples are available.
[3]
[4]Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
23:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi.
First, kudos to you and the other candidates for stepping up to represent the community this way.
With the size of the community, I have no doubt you'll have lots of people having lots of opinions. But as I believe in transparency, and in positive reinforcement, I just wanted to share my thought process with you.
For me, I don't hate the WMF at all. I think they serve several important purposes. But I've been concerned about the pushes of late to add features which aren't "nuts and bolts" useful. Making things easier for our editors and readers is great. Adding features to cater to trying to pull in disinterested editors, or trying to make wikipedia interfaces look like familiar social media interfaces - no, please no. And I've really not liked how wmf-related discussions have become more and more closed to the anonymous editing community. For example, while I don't necessarily oppose the idea of a UCoC - the processes involved in its creation and implementation have been very concerning.
So anyway, I went through all the material, watched the videos, read the notes and all the rest. The compass tool was interesting as well.
I narrowed to three, then to two. A few decisions were easy, most were tough. And in the end, I ranked you first.
Your positions on the tech side of things were strong in your favour.
I also felt that, though everyone seemed to be reading their responses from a written page (a good idea to be sure), listening to you read them, you seemed to me to clearly believe everything you said, these weren't just an attempt to try to say the "right things", or to appeal to a demographic.
I like your idea of a bottom up approach, though I do think there are times when someone needs to step in to cut the gordian knot, or in some instances, to help guide.
And as I kept reading your responses, I kept wishing you said more about the openness of the internet and protection of privacy and protection from oppression, etc. (basically the things which seemed very clear in User:Fjmustak's statements.) And then I come here and see your "free culture" userbox, and laughed, thinking "where was that in your statements"? lol
Anyway, I've rambled on enough. I just thought I would share some of my thoughts. (I considered a lot more things from the statements than just what I've shared here, but this is long enough as it is : )
I wish you well, and thanks again : ) - jc37 21:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Legoktm! Sorry to continue to be a broken record, but it's really disheartening to see that the community consensus to trial semi-protection at TFA has apparently still not been honored, more than a year after Jc37 closed the discussion. You offered to BRFA it, so the ball remains in your court. Any updates since March? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
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
Changes later this week
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
01:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
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
templatelinks
table are now being dropped: tl_namespace
and tl_title
. Any queries that rely on these fields need to be changed to use the new normalization field called tl_target_id
. See
T299417 for more information. This is part of
normalization of links tables.
[7]
[8]Changes later this week
Future changes
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
MediaWiki message delivery 22:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Am I correct that you used your meta:System administrators abilities to make this minor text tweak to a user script here at enWiki? ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Kunal. I am surprised and dismayed that you did not get a seat on the board. Maybe Mike Peel will be able to bridge the gap as you shared many intentions. Please do try again next year, and thank you for all the support you already lend to the volunteer community, especially NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The photos of Elizabeth II from September 19's TFA still seem to be protected on Commons ( commons:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en), despite not being on the MP or in MP staging areas. Do you know why this is? — Goszei ( talk) 22:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
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
rel
attribute of links. Further details are in
T315209.Changes later this week
.json
will be treated as JSON, just like they already are in the User and MediaWiki namespaces.
[14]Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
MediaWiki message delivery 00:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Thanks for making a new RFA voting history tool! {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
You really want them here? Well, ok. I've only looked at my own results.
Two false positives:
Less seriously, it's unable to parse most of my RFA edits at all. I expect that of this sort of tally-counter, since I almost always omit bolded votewords. (I like to pretend I'm persuading other participants in a debate instead of just bolding a vote for the closer to count; I've come to accept how much bots hate me for it.) On the other hand:
Whitespace in the "old" field isn't getting trimmed; compare "Rebecca,Ambi", " Rebecca,Ambi ", and "Rebecca, Ambi". The last seems like it'd be a common error; seen in the wild at WT:RFA#An update by SandyGeorgia as [15] (a poor example to illustrate the bug, since neither of the old usernames were actually renamed to the new one). — Cryptic 15:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)