Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 37

This 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.

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Try it and you'll see. Is it off sick? Bishonen | talk 17:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Works for me. Can you give more information? Does the block module window open at all? — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to push an update but I will hold off until I can confirm the current version is working for you. If it is not I'll try to see if it can fixed with the next deploy as well — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the window opens, MusikAnimal, but it's blank except for a line at the top reading "Block or issue block template to [username]", and a "Submit query" button at the bottom. I can't ask it to do anything, you know? Just an empty window. It worked yesterday. Bishonen | talk 17:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Sounds like you've either got a very slow internet connection or running into an undiscovered bug, perhaps a conflict with another script you're using. What browser/operating system are you using? If you don't mind I'm going to walk you through opening up your browser's JavaScript console so we can check for errors. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

But it worked yesterday, and I haven't added any new scripts. Browser... browser... uh... Firefox 38.0.5. Mac OSX 10.6.8. Too old? Bishonen | talk 17:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

And my connection is very reasonably fast broadband. Bishonen | talk 18:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

Not too old at all, very modern browser at that! Please press ⌘ Command+⌥ Option+I to open up Firefox's developer console. At the top of the developer console are several tabs, please click on "Console". Now, try to open up the Twinkle block module and let me know if you see anything printed in the console. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've got the console, but there's an unbelievable amount of stuff in the "console" tab, and it's not searchable. And the little headers are all the same, "console.trace():". And the content of them looks very much the same too. :-( I can't see Twinkle. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

Within the console, you can filter which types of messages are shown. I believe "logging" is on by default. The only one you want is the "JS" (orange dot). Errors are always printed in red. Do you see anything in red? — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, these are pink with a red x:

Blocked loading mixed active content "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zocky/SearchBox.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"[Learn More] load.php:2:0

Blocked loading mixed active content "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:^demon/csd.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"[Learn More] load.php:2:0

Blocked loading mixed active content "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dr%20pda/editrefs.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"[Learn More]

Bishonen | talk 18:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

Do I have to remove the corresponding scripts in my monobook.js for the block module to work? I've had them for a long time, I'm no longer sure exactly what they do, but I think I need Zocky's searchbox. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

No, you shouldn't have to. Also the "mixed content" errors you've listed shouldn't affect Twinkle. Who in particular are you trying to block? Also what skin are you using? — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Monobook. I tried to block 2001:590:3c03:17a:ad43:43b2:f6a:8efa. (I've done it by hand now.) Bishonen | talk 18:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

Hey, I just experimentally tried to block you, and it seemed fine! (I didn't actually confirm; should I try that too? :-) ) Is it those accursed IPv6'es that are the problem? I already hate them because the ranges are so mystifying. Bishonen | talk 18:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

No, I tried to block that IP and it worked fine. But please, do not block me!!! :) I guess try another IPv6 address, and also a IPv4 and let me know if you have problems. If you want to test blocking accounts you can use User:Keegagan — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I was able to block 2001:5B0:28FF:EF0:0:0:0:3C. I can't block 2001:590:3c03:17a:ad43:43b2:f6a:8efa, 2001:590:3c03:185:2956:ef0e:2aa4:83c, or 2001:590:3c03:194:23fe:735d:1328:925e. (BTW I started to try to figger a possible rangeblock for the character who's using those three, but had to give up. I'm getting a "502 Bad Gateway" error for NativeForeigner's IPv6tool :-() I have no trouble blocking any IPv4's. Bishonen | talk 18:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

I'm stumped. I'm using the same browser/OS, I've tried the same IPs, and had another admin try it out as well, and it worked fine. I'm going to proceed with the update I had, as I don't think it will make your situation worse. My recommendation for you is to first try refreshing the page when Twinkle doesn't load, perhaps a few times before you can conclude it's that IP in particular and not something else. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to be sure, let's also check your network log. When the Twinkle block module first opens, it hits the API before loading the module in full. The "blank window" as you describe would make sense if no response or bad response came back from the API. So... let's open back up the developer console with ⌘ Command+⌥ Option+I. Now select the "Network" tab. Now refresh the page. You should output in the developer console. Then open up the Twinkle block module. Now, the leftmost skinny column should have a checkmark as the title, right next to the "Method" column. Click on that check mark twice to sort the network activity. Please then go through the list and tell me if you see any entry with a code other than 200 (green) or 304 (orange triangle). Any errors should be in red, but I'm not certain. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to hijack this thread, but I had a similar problem yesterday when I was trying to check the Twinkle Block Module for a block of a named account, but just got the same screen that Bishonen did (at least from what I can remember). I went back to easyblock to do the task. However, the twinkle module seemed to work today though I used it only for placing the notice and not performing the block (but all fields were there). I'm on FF 38.0.5 and 10.10.3, monobook with scripts on common if that should matter. It could have just been operator error on my part though. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Right. No, they're all 200 green or 304 orange. Sorry to be a pain. Hello, Spaceman. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

Oh boy. I assume you did try refreshing the page a few times to verify it is that specific IP? It seems odd how it would vary user to user. Maybe if the username had abnormal characters, but with IPv6 you only have a-f, 0-9 and : — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I tried several times with those three pesky IPv6'es. It never happened that an IP wouldn't work at first and then worked after a few refreshs. The ones that worked, worked right away always; the ones that didn't work, never did. Seems odd is right. Especially when one IPv6, 2001:5B0:28FF:EF0:0:0:0:3C, worked fine. You can see how that one is off on its own, while the other three are related. But it seems absurd that it would affect the 2001:590:3c03:xxxx range specifically — doesn't it? Especially when it's apparently just me. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

(edit conflict)::Was a simple enough username -- Lucky5833. I tried reblocking the user now and it seemed to work fine (didn't click to actually do it but I was able to select all options, got the already blocked notice, and able to preview), might have been a one-off. Hello Bishonen and thanks for checking it MA. —SpacemanSpiff 20:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

When I go to the deleted page, pull up the page protect dialog box, and click Submit Query nothing happens. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a known issue. Create protect has been broken for a little while now. I'll try to get a fix out really soon. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am proposing to add an "as you did at x to user" in the templates uw-harass 1 through 4/4im. This will clearly tell the user who harassed others who was the victim. But that requies 3 params so it needs some coding of that part of Twinkle.

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Foobar to UBX, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Foobar to UBX.

According to ToonLucas22,

That can't be done because the warnings then would need 3 parameters, on Wikipedia user warnings have only 2 parameters. Adding an extra parameter could potentially break the way Twinkle posts these warnings.

So could anyone on the Twinkle devteam help me solve this problem? --Fazbear7891 (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fazbear, please keep in mind that the target of harassment may often prefer not to have their details propagated with the warnings as this may draw more unwanted attention. This is especially true if it is a personal attack or the language used was particularly offensive, such as racist, mysogynistic or homophobic in nature. An abusive user's edits can be easily tracked if an administrator wanted to check it over. --Fæ (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Fazbear7891: please don't include images (such as File:LGBT flag square.svg) in your signature, however noble the intent: they go against WP:SIGN#Images, which is policy. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The images is after the timestamp, meaning it isn't part of the signature, but added manually after the message. No policy about that. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fæ. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The result is no. I will close the discussion here. --Fazbear7891 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Where should I put this image within this Twinkle? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain yourself a bit more clearly. What is it that you want to do? — This, that and the other (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Put this image within WP:TWINKLE page. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a very good screenshot. It doesn't clearly show Twinkle's features. Moreover, I think the screenshot that is currently on WP:TW is more informative than yours, don't you think? — This, that and the other (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you. By the way, does a gallery sound like a good idea? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 20:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to be a Negative Nancy, but I'm not a fan of the new setup at all. I've been trying to work with it, but it makes blocking slower and more complicated, not easier (at least for me), and the block message often doesn't say exactly what I intended it to say. Would it be possible to leave the traditional blocking options in the talk page warning box as it was before, while the new module would still be available for those who find it easier? --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bongwarrior: Sorry you're having trouble! For starters, if you just want to add a block template, it should require no more clicks than it did before. TW > Block > uncheck Block > choose a template and submit. Before it was TW > Warn > choose Block > choose a template and submit. Let me know if that alone is an issue, as hopefully it is not!

What I am more interested to here is why you find it complicated. The idea is you don't have to go to Special:Block anymore, and if you are blocking and templating with Twinkle it should be considerably faster than the traditional route. Are you using Twinkle to perform the block itself? Can you give an example of when the template didn't say what you wanted it to? Thank you for bearing with me as I try to ensure this new module as a clear improvement for all admins. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and I need to reverse myself a little bit: I was under the impression that the new blocking options were only available under the user's contributions page, which I thought was cumbersome and counter-intuitive, particularly if I only needed to leave a block template. I now see that it's also available on the user's talk page, but my setup has it pushed waaaay off the screen to the right. I'll have to try to mess with my settings to put the block button somewhere more accessible, but once I do that it should be a lot easier for me.

As far as not saying what I want it to say, the main gripe I have is with the available IP block templates. From what I can tell, those templates always say "Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing...". That's fine sometimes, but if it's obvious that a single user is behind the IP, I'd rather it say "You have been blocked from editing...". For an example, see User talk:69.115.93.213. For some reason, NeilN's block said "you" but mine didn't, although we both used Twinkle and we both selected uw-vblock. Custom setup by Neil, or user error on my part?

Once I get everything figured out, I'd prefer to use Special:Block for blocking and Twinkle only for the block message, because the block message can usually wait a minute or two. I usually double check to make sure any vandal edits have been reverted (and reverted correctly) before leaving the block notice. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you are using Monobook? In this case I believe the Twinkle links are outlayed horizontally. The Block item should be towards the front with the other admin actions such as CSD.

The "anonymous users from this IP address..." was a recent addition to the Block module. Based on the documentation, I believe the text generated by {{uw-block}} is meant to be worded this way, where you should add anon=yes when blocking anonymous users (or rather, omit it when you are not). This is presumably in conformity to the stewardship of WikiProject User Warnings... but we can discuss at WT:UW to iron out if that is anything important. The old Twinkle Warn module simply did not offer this functionality, so I believe people just got used to that. It's difficult to please everyone here... but if we can establish either consensus or backing from WP:UW than that is what we will go with. I don't want to add yet another checkbox for omitting anon=yes unless enough people demand it. If it is clearly a single person behind the IP we could consider a hard block. The Block module looks at the selected/current block options and will omit the anon parameter if you are performing a hard block, as in that case anyone editing behind the IP (not just anonymous users) are unable to edit. For shared IPs there are various templated (e.g {{anonblock}}) presets you can use.

Have you given block+warn a try? It may win you over :) Just so you know, there is a "blank talk page on indefinite block" option in the Twinkle preferences, that will leave only the block notice and remove all other content. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Monobook, I can't stand the others. Thanks for your help, I've hidden the tabs I never used (which needed to be done anyway) and it should work out a lot better for me now. I'd still prefer that the old wording be available for IPs, but I'll adapt if I don't get it. One more trivial thing, no big deal at all, but after the standard tabs, mine currently go Warn, Welcome, then Block. Is there an easy way that you know of to swap Welcome and Block so that it goes Warn > Block > Welcome? --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That is sensible and I can make that happen :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A couple weeks back, on my nonWP wiki, I had a problem of Double-Twinkle. Thanks to the advice of "This, that", I could resolve that problem. At that point in time, Twinkle was working perfectly. Unfortunately, a week later, while trying to fix another problem after the upgrade of my MW installation, the tech staff on my server (RoseHosting) seem to have changed something - don't know what and they also don't know what - and now Twinkle has completely disappeared. To their credit, RoseHosting tech support did try to help in resolving this issue, but they failed.

The Gadgets extension is correctly installed. Some of my gadgets work correctly (for example, HotCat and RevisionJumper). Another gadget, Edittop, works, but only when the code is also placed in the user's personal common.js. But Twinkle is nowhere to be seen. When I go to the Twinkle/preferences page, the message I receive is: "You must have Twinkle installed (either as a gadget or manually as a user script) to use this page." Well, Twinkle is installed, but for some reason that I just cannot figure out, it is not working properly. I have also tried to resolve the issue by adding Gadget-Twinkle.js and the Gadget-morebits.js to the user's personal common.js, but even that unsatisfactory workaround did not succeed. Any ideas on what has gone wrong now and how to fix it? --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Abhidevananda: To rule out the obvious: did the tech staff revert the server to a backup predating your Twinkle setup? That can sometimes happen. If that's the case, you might just need to start over from the beginning and set it up again. The other possible issue I see is that with the upgrade to MW, it may be necessary to (re)declare or adjust ResourceLoader dependencies in the gadget (which unfortunately is not something I know how to do). jcgoble3 (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Jcgoble3, thanks for your thoughts. Regarding "the obvious", no... they did not revert to a backup older than a single day. They wanted to go back one week (which also was long after my Twinkle setup), but I was not willing to give up so much work. So the installation of Twinkle appears to be exactly as it was before. It should be working fine, but MediaWiki treats it as if it is not yet installed. As to the second possible issue, I too have no idea how to adjust ResourceLoader dependencies, but I would happily give it a try if it could fix this. --Abhidevananda (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you able to provide a link to the wiki? — This, that and the other (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's http://sarkarverse.org. To avoid spam, we distribute login credentials on request. But I've just sent you by email the same admin credentials that RoseHosting uses. Thank you for your insights and assistance. --Abhidevananda (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I logged in using those credentials and Twinkle appeared without a problem for me, although it did often take a few seconds for it to appear (this may be due to a slow server). Try clearing your browser cache, logging out and in again, and seeing if it works using the credentials you sent me. If you use another account for your day-to-day work, try also logging in with that account. If it does not work there, you may have some invalid JavaScript code in another gadget or the user's "common.js" file. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow! The problem seems to be somewhat browser dependent. Generally, I use Firefox. With Firefox, Twinkle just does not appear at all on my wiki, but it does appear on Wikipedia. With Firefox, Twinkle does not appear on my Wiki, regardless of what user ID I log in with. However, with Internet Explorer, Twinkle come up fine, again regardless of what user ID I log in with. So now the question is: What would have changed inside Firefox to block Twinkle, but only on my own wiki and not on Wikipedia? By the way, my cache was cleared. The problem is also not due to my add-ons; because I restarted Firefox in Safe mode (all add-ons disabled), and the problem persisted.) As I don't have any special settings inside Firefox for my wiki as opposed to for Wikipedia, this is rather mysterious. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've used Huggle and STiki previously, so I thought I'd try Twinkle out. Having enabled the checkbox in my preferences, I fail to see how to proceed. Shouldn't I be seeing an icon to start the program and begin patrolling? Thanks. Jusdafax 13:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not that kind of a program. It just gives you a whole bunch of useful tools when you're already on certain pages, but it doesn't bring vandalism or other problems to you. I strongly recommend keeping it enabled though, it's insanely useful and convenient. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Jusdafax 13:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed on several occasions lately, that Twinkle does not enclose tags within the multiple issues template, even though I have the option checked for it do so. As an example, please see this edit: Special:Diff/669579306. Is this a bug, or do I have something setup wrong on my end? Using Google Chrome. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In the RFPP option, there is no choice of saying "renew (protection)", rather than "temporary (protection)" or other like terms. Can you please add in the "renew" option? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking up the page I noticed that I am not the only one using the latest release of Firefox and experiencing problems with Twinkle. And my problems also seem to have started about the time when this last release of Firefox came out. So I'm curious... can anyone else (other than MusikAnimal and Bishonen) confirm the problem? My Twinkle was working fine in Firefox prior to 38.0.5, and it still works fine in Internet Explorer. This suggests a compatibility issue that arose only with the latest version of Firefox that came out around June 5. --Abhidevananda (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Abhidevananda: Could you be a little more specific? Is Twinkle loading at all, or is it just certain features? I quickly tested things out on Firefox 38.0.5 for OSX and it appears to be working as intended. Bishonen was having issues with the Block module which is available only to admins, and since the last Twinkle update they've reported the issue as resolved. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Can you try and find our whether there are any script errors in your javascript console? See WP:JSERROR for how. Amalthea 15:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me answer all of the questions listed at WP:JSERROR:

1. What is the behaviour you're seeing? In Firefox 38.0.5/6 for Windows, on my non-WP wiki, Twinkle does not appear on the menu bar (TW). On the Twinkle/preferences page, there is a notice that Twinkle may not be installed (although it is). Twinkle worked fine for my wiki in the previous version of Firefox, although reverting to that earlier version does not resolve the problem. On my wiki, Twinkle works fine if I use Internet Explorer to access the wiki. That is to say, Twinkle appears on the menu bar, and the Twinkle/preferences page loads correctly. Oddly, Twinkle works fine on Wikipedia with the same Firefox 38.0.5/6.

2. What is the behaviour you're expecting to see? When browsing with Firefox 38.0.5/6, I'm expecting to see Twinkle on the menu bar and hence to be able to use it. I am also expecting to see the Twinkle/preferences page as before (and as I can see it when accessing my wiki with another browser).

3. How can the incorrect behaviour be reproduced? Describe exactly what you're doing and seeing. I suppose the simple way to reproduce the behavior would be to access my wiki with the latest version of Firefox. As logging in would be required and tight spam control has been imposed, login credentials are required. For the next couple days, a guest account may be used. (www.sarkarverse.org – User ID: guest , Password: testaccount)

4. Confirm that you have tried bypassing your browser cache. Yes I have cleared the cache... numerous times. It has no effect. I have also tested this with the same version of Firefox on two separate PCs, one running Windows 7 and the other running Windows 8.1.

5. Make note of your browser, browser version, operating system, and operating system version. See above.

6. Append relevant JavaScript errors your browser logged. Here is what I get in Firefox 38.0.5/6 on my Windows 7 PC:

______________________________________________________________________

TypeError: Components.classes['@mozilla.org/browser/global-history;2'] is undefined pdfDownloadOverlay.js:375:6

TypeError: variable selector redeclares argument gallery-content.js:77:7 NS_ERROR_FAILURE: Component returned failure code: 0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE) [nsITaskbarTabPreview.invalidate] WindowsPreviewPerTab.jsm:406:0

ReferenceError: reference to undefined property this.paramSpec.manual commands.js:259:2

ReferenceError: reference to undefined property this._splitConsole toolbox.js:290:4

ReferenceError: reference to undefined property this.visualizers[this.currentWindowId] tilt.js:263:4

SyntaxError: in strict mode code, functions may be declared only at top level or immediately within another function touch-events.js:235:17

TypeError: Components.classes['@mozilla.org/browser/global-history;2'] is undefined pdfDownloadOverlay.js:375:6

ReferenceError: reference to undefined property l._originalListener event-emitter.js:108:8 NS_ERROR_FAILURE: Component returned failure code: 0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE) [nsITaskbarTabPreview.invalidate] WindowsPreviewPerTab.jsm:406:0

TypeError: Components.classes['@mozilla.org/browser/global-history;2'] is undefined pdfDownloadOverlay.js:375:6

______________________________________________________________________

On the Windows 8.1 PC, the Firefox browser console does not seem to work as smoothly, but eventually I did receive the following notice: ______________________________________________________________________

22:23:56.155 mutating the Prototype of an object will cause your code to run very slowly; instead create the object with the correct initial Prototype value using Object.create1 browser.js:5232:2 ______________________________________________________________________

Frankly, I don't know what any of that means. However, on both PCs inside Firefox, Twinkle does not appear on my wiki. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, most - if not all - of the js errors listed above (on the Windows 7 PC) relate to an extension called PDF Download (by Nitro)... which never worked anyway. Once I removed that extension, all of the js errors disappeared (similar to what I see on my Windows 8.1 PC, where that extension was not installed. --Abhidevananda (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've figured out the problem... and it's pretty much what "This, that" had said. The Twinkle code requires some time to load. With Firefox, I have been going to the login screen first and logging in very quickly (using a macro). This means that the site js has not fully loaded before I leave that screen and go to the main wiki screen. When that happens, Twinkle never loads, and some other gadgets also fail to load. However, if I pause at the login screen long enough to let the js load (including the language gadget associated built into this version of MediaWiki), then Twinkle also loads. So it seems this is not a problem with Firefox or Twinkle but rather the speed with which the js of MW 1.25.1 loads (possibly related to some setting on my server). So let's call this one: Problem Solved. Thanks to everyone for your interest and advice. --Abhidevananda (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing some very standard CSD G13 tagging and I keep getting this error message: Tagging page: Failed to save edit: Invalid token. But if I refresh the screen or go into the Edit page and then return to Read, I can tag it without problems. It's not a big issue but it's been happening consistently today so I thought I'd mention it. Thanks for Twinkle! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This might be a result of this issue. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I was instantly addicted to it. Just thought I'd mention that, to balance the TOC wrt to the previous section, and especially because I complained above about having mysterious trouble blocking some IPv6 users. Thank you very much for your quick response and extensive checking there, MusikAnimal. I just tested blocking those IPv6es again, and this time it worked fine. Since you've just done an update, if I've got that right, could that have been what fixed it, or is it just that the little man in my computer is now in a better mood? Bishonen | talk 10:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Glad to hear it!! I made an array of various changes with the last update, I can't say what would have fixed your issue, but hey, so long as it's working! As always let me know if you run into anymore issues and I'll do my best to address them. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S., MusikAnimal, I only just realized that the block module is going to know if I've revoked talkpage access, and will change the block notice accordingly.[1] That's actually brilliant. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC).

The edit summary for a first-level "adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons", {{uw-biog1}} reads "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Foo". However, there are many times you need to revert unsourced information in a BLP that may not be particularly controversial, but just potentially inaccurate.

For example, in Clara-Jumi Kang, an IP editor recently changed the musician's birth year to a specific birth date. No reference was added, and checking the existing reference, it still provides only the year. I reverted and twinkled. I think reversion is correct; otherwise unsourced and potentially inaccuarte information remins in the article. Especially for a BLP, I don't like to leave that with a "cite needed". But, really, the birth date is not controversial, and I really hate that being in the edit summary; it makes it sound like a bigger deal than it actually is.

How about instead just using "General note: Adding unreferenced information about living persons on Foo"?

This might be applicable to {{uw-biog2}}, {{uw-biog3}}, and {{uw-biog4}} as well. TJRC (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not just use {{uw-unsourced1}} and family in these cases? biog1 is especially designed for that critical clause in WP:BLP which says, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Elizium23 (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

See this edit for the bug and the subsequent edit for the manual fix.

The problem is that the script does not anticipate that the user will put a full-url Wikipedia page (which contains an "=" sign) in the comment, and therefore it does not put a "1=" in the {{center|...}} template.

A complete code review of other places where custom user inputs are likely to include full-url Wikipedia pages might be useful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle already passes the input with a 1=. The problem lies with the {{db-reason-notice}} template itself. I've fixed the template. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I know twinkle marks pages as patrolled when nominating them for speedy deletion or PROD. However, does it also automatically mark them as patrolled when nominating them for AfD? I ask because another editor left a message on my talk page saying I had not marked Bitcoin network analyzed by network science as patrolled when I nominated it using Twinkle. If it doesn't do this currently, is it a feature we could add? Thanks -War wizard90 (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I am the editor that bought this up with War wizard90. I'm also noticing articles tagged for PROD deletion not being patrolled. Is this a bug? --I dream of horses (T) @ 07:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@War wizard90 and I dream of horses: Sorry for not replying sooner. Articles are intentionally not marked as patrolled when tagged for PROD, the theory behind this being that, since anyone can just come along and remove the PROD tag without justifying it or improving the article in any way (and this kind of thing happens quite often), a simple PROD tagging is not really sufficient to consider the article patrolled.

I'm certain this has been discussed before, but I can't seem to find the discussion in the archives... — This, that and the other (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Thanks for clearing up the issue regarding PROD articles. However, what about articles nominated for AfD, as this was the original issue? Is there some reason we wouldn't want to automatically mark AfD pages as patrolled because the AfD cannot be removed until the discussion is over. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason on the face of it. It's not difficult for me to add patrolling to the AFD code, so I'll do so unless anyone else objects. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A while ago, someone unlinked the sandbox. As far as I can tell, it's possible to unlink the main page -- I didn't try, naturally, because we all know what happened last time someone thought something was impossible to do to the Main Page. Other pages I think unlinking should be disabled on would be the MOS, 5P, other core pages, help pages like the Teahouse and Village pumps, maybe some important user pages like Jimbo Wales, Example, etc. Eman235/talk 15:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, {{Welcomevandal}} has been renamed to {{Welcome-unconstructive}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, could the edit message box that pops up during a Twinkle Rollback be made a little friendlier? Currently, when the box is displayed, I am unable to do anything else with the browser. This means that if I want to, for example, look up a link to add to the edit message, I am unable to open a new tab or switch to a different one until I get rid of this pop-up box. Of course, if I do click cancel and am slow in closing that tab, the rollback proceeds with an empty edit message. Thanks. --~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpt.a.haddock (talk • contribs)

Since we are using the JavaScript function window.prompt what you are experiencing is a limitation of your browser, not Twinkle. I am unaware of any immediate plans to use another more customized method of prompting for a message. Sorry I could not be of more help! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Thank you. The Wikipedia Visual Editor uses a dialog window which is a lot friendlier. Perhaps that code can be reused here. Please consider something like it in order to improve usability.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to tag an article as being advert like but I get back a red error message "Tagging article: Failed to save edit: Invalid token". Is anyone else having this problem? RJFJR (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

WMF issue, I believe. More at phab:T102199. Is the issue persistent for you? Usually reloading the page then trying again does the trick — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Works now, was consistent yesterday. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

In compliance with the Twinkle notice, this is to let it be known that a proposal is in progress to rename a redirect category (rcat) template. The template to be renamed is {{R from title without diacritics}}, and its new title is proposed to be {{R to diacritics}}. A pre-move inquiry has been posted to the Village pump. Thank you and Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Paine  07:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: Page move was effected at 21:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC). Joys! – Paine  01:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned this above, but it's still a problem. If I use the block gadget at home, it works fine. If I use it in my office (part of a larger network), it fails. Bug 1 - if I try to issue a template only (having already blocked the editor), it simply hangs. Bug 2 - if I try to use the whole gadget, it won't let me issue the block at all, with the following error message, even if I've specified a time. It's not a major problem because I don't often edit Wikipedia from my office, but ... Any ideas? Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In that screenshot, I notice several "broken image" icons. Might it be that your connection to the relevant server is flaky? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. I'll try it again tomorrow (the building where my office is located is known for occasionally dipping out connection-wise, but it's usually fine). Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite: What browser are you using? The "please provide an expiry" message should only happen if an expiry is not provided, and have nothing to do with an internet connection. However we are using various ES5 functions that seemingly could cause this unexpected behaviour if you're using an outdated browser. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Having done some more experimentation this is clearly something to do with the setup of the network I'm working on. The bug is still happening, on IE11 and Firefox 39. At home, with the same setup, I have no problems at all. Clearly something in the way our network communicates with the Internet is causing the issue. We share the network with an educational institution so I wonder if their webfilter is something to do with it (though, having said that, the previous warning gadget worked fine). Anyway, I do very little blocking from my office (I only look at Wikipedia in my lunch hour and odd breaks) so it's not a big deal. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

For a couple of years I was occasionally working in an institution where their firewall (or some such) blocked certain websites, mainly porn and gambling. It allowed en.wikipedia.org but prevented commons.wikimedia.org (presumably because of the uncensored explicit photos) so that I couldn't get to the true file description page for a lot of images, but the images themselves were displayed in the articles because they're held on another domain - the URLs begin upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en for images hosted on Wikipedia, and upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons for images hosted on Commons. Your broken images imply that upload.wikimedia.org is blocked for you, so other domains - such as those holding scripts - might also be blocked. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, a little more investigation reveals that all Commons sites are blocked (presumably for the same reason you mention above). Also, the network manager says he's "not surprised at all" that some scripts might be blocked as their filter uses whitelisting rather than blacklisting. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

New to Twinkle, so perhaps I missed something, but as I was reviewing an article earlier, I clicked on an external link only to find myself with a 404 error (page not found). Alas, the "official link" for the TV show Unforgettable is no longer supported by CBS since they cancelled the show and another network is picking it up (but appears not to have made their own "official site" for the show yet). "Oh goody!" I thought, "Now I can try out a Twinkle maintenance tag." Imagine my surprise to find that this particular tag is not supported by Twinkle. The {{dead link}} template is used on over 130,000 pages, so I'm thinking that it is common enough to add to Twinkle. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a reason it isn't already there (but if so, I was unable to find it in the archives). So please consider this to be a request for discussion and/or addition of this tag to those supported by Twinkle.  Etamni | ✉  05:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It's because {{dead link}} is typically added directly after said deceased URL, not just as a general maintenance template. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense.  Etamni | ✉  07:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, unless I'm missing something the new block module seems to be missing Template:Uw-ipevadeblock from the dropdown; at the moment the only sock blocking message is an indef for registered accounts. Could it be added back? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Second this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite and NeilN: This should be in the dropdown under the "extended reasons". It is labeled "Block evasion – IP". — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Sorry, we should have been clearer. There's no "Block evasion - IP" equivalent for registered editors. Even if you block a registered editor (the master) for X hours for creating a sock, the message is still says indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

And I realize that was still totally unclear. What I'm looking for is a message to give to a sockmaster that they've been blocked for X hours for creating puppets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Got it. This is on the to-dos, and I'll hop on this as soon as I get a chance. The problem is that template does not adhere to WP:UW and requires special handling. I'd like to rework it to conformities, but that'd require broader discussion and also an update to other scripts. I can implement a workaround for the time being. Also, just so you know, if you are blocking from closing SPIs, I highly recommend you use spihelper.js if you aren't already! :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ooooh, another useful script! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it only appears when you're actually blocking an IP. I just happened to notice that it wasn't there last time I blocked a registered account. That's clever. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright! For registered accounts, you should now see "Sock puppetry (master)" and "Sock puppetry (sock)". Obviously use the first one when blocking the sockmaster; it uses {{uw-sockblock}} which conforms to standards. This used to redirect to {{SockBlock}} so I'm not sure if there are scripts out there that will now break, but the "what links here" suggests we have nothing to worry about (SPI helper script does not use it). {{SockBlock}} has remained unchanged and is the template you should use when blocking sockpuppets. For IPs you should use the block evasion template. Let me know if you have any issues! Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

{{Disregard|As noted at the linked thread, TW is simply setting anon=yes on the block templates. The proper venue for discussing the wording is WT:UW, where there's already a thread about this. —Darkwind (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)}}

Per here. For example:

• "You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions."

should not be changed to for IPs:

• "Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit."

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's take this up at WT:UW, as according to the template documentation, this is the wording that was intended to be used under the stewardship of WikiProject User Warnings. The old Twinkle Warn module simply did not take into account if you were templating an IP or an account, so I believe people got used to it being that way and accepted it as the norm. If you are performing a soft block, registered users are still allowed to edit, and the template reflects this, per WP:FRIENDLYBLOCKS. If you are concerned about them logging into an existing account, consider a hard block ("Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address"), which then the |anon=yes parameter will be omitted from the template. I do however agree some rewording could be done to not imply the disruptive user is still allowed to continue editing under an account. So I think Staszek Lem's suggested rewording would be the best route, rather than to omit the |anon=yes parameter entirely. But again let's move the discussion to WT:UW. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN, Darkwind, and MusikAnimal: I disagree; this is still a Twinkle issue, too. Even though the flag is, yes, goofy on the template, you should be able to override what options are being passed into the template. Twinkle was changed relatively recently in the way blocking and the template addition was done, and it now shouldn't be assuming that just because you're blocking an anonymous user that you're not also going to (or didn't already) block logged in users from editing on that IP as well (i.e., it shouldn't be assuming all blocks are anon-only). Though talk-page access disabling is there as an option to check, the ability to check the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" box (and have it be reflected by not using anon=yes) isn't there. --slakr^\ talk / 02:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on second look, it looks like this is a victim of its own technological advancement. It apparently checks the currently active block for the anon-only flag and forces that regardless (i.e., there's no option to ignore or disable that check), even if it wasn't your intention to use it (and, as is more applicable to the complaint, when you don't want to explicitly advertise the fact to the user). I think the latter half of that is the more applicable point, because most of our blocks are, by default, anon-only when it comes to IP users; however, we've always made it a point not to advertise the fact except when doing things like {{schoolblock}} or {{anonblock}}, which basically have their own templates that are significantly less bitey in the first place (plus can forward people on to account creation help). --slakr^\ talk / 02:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I did a report to AN3 -- here using the arv button on the user's talk page, thought the twinkle notification to the user went through, but apparently not. There's no check to notify like in the sock options, so I'm guessing it should be by default. It may just be a one off thing or operator error, so any answers/pointers would be helpful. —SpacemanSpiff 17:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this going to be supported eventually? I wanted to propose merging HTTP 301, HTTP 302 and HTTP 303, but Twinkle would not let me. —Keφr 09:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be supported by Template:Merge. Perhaps bring this up at Template talk:Merge? Eman235/talk 09:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Really? {{merge|A|B|C|discuss=D}} —Keφr 10:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, evidently it is. I didn't actually test it; want to update the documentation? Eman235/talk 10:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Out-of-date (or merely incorrectly-written) documentation is precisely why I made my comment of 07:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC) at Template talk:Article history#ITN and OTD parameters. If Template:Merge had been wholly converted to Lua, checking for valid parameters would be so much more difficult. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Back to topic: will this be supported eventually? Eman235/talk 07:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

At WP:AN User:Bishonen has written that "All the accounts welcomed here by User:Can you please provide me with a username. Thank you. are socks of the "Not a massive fan" IP vandal, all created on 21 June 2015 (I assume; I only checked the creation log date for a few, but of course they were) and ready to be autoconfirmed by ten back-and-forth edits the moment the vandal wants to edit a semiprotected page, such as this and this today. Does somebody have access to a script or tool that would simplify blocking all these sleepers, please? Also, presumably there may be more, from another date and welcomed by "somebody else". Might a CU look for them, please? Bishonen | talk 22:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC).

Well, I have to go to bed, and I don't know how to take this further. I just called for a CU on IRC, to no avail. But note also that there's no CU needed to identify that long list as socks of a single individual: — follow my links and you'll see what I mean. Follow this fellow to Acroterion's page for instance, and look at the history of User talk:The Caledonian Sleeper. I'm hoping any script-savvy person (where are you, Writ Keeper?) can do the blocking. There are so many socks that I at least, am not up for blocking them by hand. Maybe a few admins want to pitch in as a collaborative effort? Bishonen | talk 02:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)."

The first (or rather last) 21 were blocked, I'm starting on the others, but this is going to take a lot of time. Twinkle would have been a real boon. Or [[User talk:MusikAnimal, do you know of something else that would do the job? Doug Weller (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Twinkle has a batch delete tool, a batch undelete tool, a batch protect tool... Would a "batch block" tool along similar lines be of any use? — This, that and the other (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In theory, you could use Twinkle to file them all in a single SPI then use the SPI Helper script to mass-block, but you'd still have to copy-paste all the usernames individually into the SPI-report function of Twinkle. It's better than manually blocking them all, but far from ideal. This, that and the other, the SPI Helper script allows mass block-tagging, so perhaps some portion of it could be adapted to Twinkle? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the author of the SPI helper script also made massblock.js :) I've never tried it, but it looks like it does what you want. With this you'll still need to copy/paste the usernames, though. We could look into making a batch-block tool for Twinkle that goes by a category, or *maybe* parses the current page to find usernames, but how often does this really happen? — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Got distracted and forgot to respond here. TC's tool looks useful. You're probably right that something for Twinkle wouldn't be worth it. In this case it turned out to be a false alarm (probably), so a good thing it wasn't easy to do. Doug Weller (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I just closed the TfD for the warning template {{Uw-vgoblock}} as delete, and then noticed the 'please notify Twinkle maintainers' banner on it. The reason for deletion is the fact that it's apparently never used and until recently gave out-of-date advice, and I don't see it available in Twinkle, so likely the notification request is also out of date. In any case, it is {{being deleted}} until confirmed. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, on re-read it's not obvious this was meant to be a question. Can you confirm this template is not used in twinkle? Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Twinkle doesn't use this template. Thanks for the notification. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Template has been deleted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Community Tech is looking at some commonly used tools (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108426 for Twinkle) and seeing if they are good candidates for us to help improve them while we're getting our team and processes set up. Some questions for Twinkle devs:

• Is there interest in Community Tech working on some of the open issues?
• Are there existing development plans or priorities we should be aware of?
• What is Twinkle currently licensed under?
• Has there been discussion about bringing some of these features into an extension?

--Fhocutt (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

For anyone else playing along here, this discussion is continuing at the Phabricator task linked above. If you have something to add, please feel free to contribute. (Don't forget that you can log into Phabricator with your Wikimedia credentials, unlike its predecessor Bugzilla, which had its own separate login system.) — This, that and the other (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

My Twinkle rollback in diff view hasn't been working for the past few days. At first it wasn't working in Chrome (OS X) so I switched to Firefox, but now it's not loading there either. – czar 04:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That's no good. In what way is it not working? Not showing up at all? Showing up, but when you click it, not doing anything? If you can provide a little more detail, it might help us to understand the problem. You also might like to go over the troubleshooting steps at WP:JSERROR. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It looks like User:Pyrospirit/metadata.js was getting stuck and none of the gadgets would load (including Twinkle). That said, I have a ton of deprecated parameter notifs here... – czar 04:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Czar: User:Pyrospirit/metadata.js uses sajax and so has been broken for about a week (see e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#Legacy gadgets are disabled). Instead, go to Preferences → Gadgets and enable "Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header (documentation)" which is a fixed (and improved) version of the same user script. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

See here. Twinkle posted the unprotection request in the "edit request" section. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, this is a strange one. I just tried it myself and it seemed to go into the right section. The structure of the RFPP page doesn't appear to have been altered at any point. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the "requests for reduction" section was empty before your request, but was not empty when I made my test request? — This, that and the other (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I also just experienced the same bug with this edit. Both the increase protection and protection reduction sections were empty at the time, so that almost certainly has something to do with it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

SPI clerk @Vanjagenije: was saying it's incorrect for Twinkle to add a new section to an SPI case for each new suspected sockpuppet, as @Andy Dingley: did here and here. Instead they should go under the same date header, as shown here.

I don't see any documentation on this, but if you go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and type in the name of a suspected sockmaster with a case open, it does the same thing as Twinkle, that is, creates a news section that repeats the date of the section header above rather than grouping them under the same header. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific question? Should Twinkle's behaviour be altered? I personally never use the SPI module so can't comment on its suitability for purpose, but I am happy to change it if SPI procedures have evolved over the years. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping to ping the SPI clerk @Vanjagenije: so they would come and explain the problem, because they twice asserted that the case additions were wrong, even after I pointed out that this is TW behavior. It appears consistent to me, but maybe Vanjagenije knows something I don't. If not, then there's nothing to see here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the point is more than when there is an open case, you should mention/add the new suspected socks to that case and not use Twinkle to file a new one... it'd probably require a lot more work but theoretically Twinkle could probably be tweaked to do that (or maybe just give a warning if there exists an open case). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: I don't really see the problem here. Twinkle is just a tool made to help users. That doesn't mean that the Twinkle is always right. If the case is already open, simply don't use Twininkle, but add new suspects manually. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again, if you go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and put in the name of an existing sockmaster, you will get the same behavior as Twinkle. I guess you can try sending a personal message to each and every editor who adds a sock report and hope they all remember to follow this undocumented workaround, but it doesn't sound fun to me. You might find yourself banging your head on something after nagging the 1,000th newbie not to use Twinkle OR the SPI page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Could an option be added to Twinkle allow a "Downgrade to Template Protection" option to be selected and utilized on pages with permanent protection which will place the request on the same location on WP:RFPP as "Unprotection" requests? Steel1943 (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle automatically analyzes the current protection level, if any, and calculates whether to place it in the increase or decrease section. So if you request template protection on a page that is full-protected, it will automatically go in the decrease section. Example: [2] jcgoble3 (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting; I just noticed that Twinkle placed this request in the proper section as well. (It is a bit unclear to choose this option since it is not bundled with the "Unblock" option.) However, per the edit in the previous comment and my referenced edit, the only option available to select in Twinkle for the description of this downgrade is "Highly visible template". In my opinion, that is very unclear, especially for administrators who are not WP:RFPP regulars. Could an option be added to place a clearer statement for WP:RFPP administrators ... something such as "Allow template editor editing"? Steel1943 (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I just nominated {{Muchas gracias}} for deletion. I selected the Inline type as its an inline template, however it still used the default template, even though there is "type=inline" in the code. Please fix this. Thanks. --TL22 (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The way the TFD tag works is, it appears as a small notice (in this case, the inline notice) in all namespaces other than Template space, where it shows up as the full-blown deletion notice. The reason for this is so that the full TFD notice is seen on the template page itself. Because {{Muchas gracias}} seems to be almost exclusively transcluded from Template space, you are seeing the full notice transcluded around the place. As far as I know there is no way to avoid this. — This, that and the other (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

3am sleepy thought: perhaps, instead of checking the namespace, the template should check against the title of the nominated template. This would require that the title of the page be passed in literal form (as opposed to a variable) to the template, but as {{tfd}} is substituted, I would think this could be handled automatically behind the scenes. Am I missing something here? jcgoble3 (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

After getting some sleep and reading the template's talk page, I realize that that would still eff up the documentation for the nominated template (plus the title of the template is already passed to the dated template that results from substitution. A better solution would be "noinclude" and "includeonly" tags created with the substitution; the full banner would go in the noinclude tags, while the smaller version would go in the includeonly tags. The |type= parameter would be passed to the version in the includeonly tags. Hmm... jcgoble3 (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there direct access to any of the Twinkle methods that does Twinkle's work? I often tag users' talk pages with {{uw-autobio}} or {{uw-coi}} tags. I have my own script that automatically adds links to my personal toolbar, and I'd like to add a couple of links that will post these tags with one click without going through the process of opening the Warnings dialog, selecting "Single-issue notices", etc. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You're probably looking for functions provided by the Warn module. The source is here. All the functions are globally accessible, e.g. Twinkle.warn.callbacks.main. If you are able to decipher how it works you could conceivably use it to warn users without the Twinkle form, instead providing the parameters directly to the relevant functions, but it probably is not as straightforward as you are hoping it be :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can figure it out but, yeah, callbacks, especially anonymous ones, are a bane to easy reuse. :-P —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That was some fun exploration. I tried setting up the parameters and executing the callback, and it executed perfectly on the first try—except that instead of adding the autobiography warning to my talk page, despite my having indicated that as the target page in two different places, it added it to the article on Null (which I restored to its previous state seconds later). Hmmmm. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Fixed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have redirected {{Welcome-t}} to {{Welcome}}, because the latter now includes a link to the Teahouse Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. I note that Twinkle has never offered the option to welcome users using {{welcome-t}}; the presence of the Twinkle template on the template's documentation was in error. Nonetheless, thank you for notifying us; if Twinkle had indeed offered {{welcome-t}} alongside {{welcome}}, we would have needed to remove the former template from Twinkle. When I have a spare few hours, I will do an audit of all templates with the {{Twinkle standard installation}} template on them, to confirm that they are indeed used by Twinkle. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I sometimes get the error message: "Tagging article: Failed to save edit: Invalid token". What token is invalid and is there anything I can do about it? RJFJR (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@RJFJR: ^{(I'm not a Twinkle developer!)} The token is, I'm guessing, an edit token, used to validate actions. I get that occasionally while using semi-automated tools, most noticeably Twinkle and Huggle. It's not too much of a big deal, just re-save your edit, although I personally would like to know if this could possibly be fixed as well (It is annoying, especially if you typed in an edit summary). --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 20:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyway to add custom templates with the additional parameters? I added {{Uw-castesanction}} to my custom warnings, but it requires a couple of parameters that the standard option in Twinkle doesn't address. Is there anyway I could do this using Twinkle? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Twinkle developers: Today I found a page that was a hoax created by copying a web page and changing the name of a famous person to another name and then pasting the result into a draft. I selected "Tag don't delete", and then "Tag with multiple criteria", intending to select both Hoax and Copyio. However, as soon as I picked the multiple criteria, the "G3 Blatant Hoax" option disappeared from the list. I presume that this is a bug, so I am reporting it, —Anne Delong (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have replicated the same issue. PLease fix. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a bug. The "hoax" deletion rationale shares G3 with the "general vandalism" rationale. As with the other cases where individual speedy deletion criteria are broken out by subtype (A7, G6, G8, G10), the subtypes are all rolled up back into their single associated criterion when the "tag with multiple criteria" box is checked. This is because the {{db-multi}} template takes criteria identifiers (e.g., "a7", "g3") as arguments. We lose the distinction offered by, say, {{db-vandalism}} and {{db-hoax}}. The bottom line is that if you want to tag an article as both G3 and G12, you can. You just can't distinguish between G3-vandal and G3-hoax. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Largo Plazo is correct; it's not a bug in Twinkle, but instead it was coded into Twinkle very intentionally. If you wish to see change here, you will need to address it at the template level (namely, Template talk:db-multiple). — This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Today when I use Twinkle to rollback vandalism, it pops up a window to edit the editor's talkpage but doesn't actually add anything to it. I thought it used to automatically add a warning? I haven't used this feature for a month or so, so I can't really say when it started. GoldenRing (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: No, Twinkle opens the editor's talkpage for you but then it is up to you to choose what message to add there. Twinkle's "Warn" dialog makes this fairly easy. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My mis-remembering. Thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, with the Safari Browser on a mac, the user's talkpage doesn't even open and never has for me... Montanabw^(talk) 03:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: You may have to allow en.wikipedia.org as an exception to whatever popup blocker you are using. I have that exception listed, and I think I did that to make Twinkle work. I'm using Firefox under Windows, so I can't offer specific help. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Depends exactly what you do, e.g. if you revert in one action a string of edits by different editors, Twinkle does not open a talk page for any of them: Noyster (talk), 09:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll try it with Firefox (Which I have, and occasionally use). You may be right that it's AdBlock or the popup blocker, I have those enabled... up the wazoo...  ;-) Good advice. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you considered adding a Twinkle function that rolls back SineBot plus the previous edit? SineBot makes it more difficult to revert vandalism and such-like, since both "rollback" and "undo" merely revert the bot, not the vandalism or block evasion or whatever. Look at my revert here for instance: in order to revert the sock, I had to make a null edit to the antepenultimate page version by Bbb23, then save. It's annoying, but I can't think of a simpler way. (Is there one?) Bishonen | talk 18:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC).

I support this! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen and Largoplazo: Tested this in SineBot's sandbox. If I use AGF rollback, Twinkle will refuse to roll it back. If I choose "normal" Twinkle rollback, I get a popup asking, "Normal revert was chosen, but the most recent edit was made by a whitelisted bot (SineBot). Do you want to revert the revision before instead?" Clicking "yes" or "OK" reverts both SineBot's edit and the edit before, with the edit summary only mentioning the author of the edit before SineBot's. If I choose vandal rollback, it gives the message "Info: Vandalism revert was chosen on SineBot. As this is a whitelisted bot, we assume you wanted to revert vandalism made by the previous user instead." and then proceeds the same as with clicking normal rollback followed by OK. Thus, Twinkle's normal and vandal rollbacks can be used to bypass SineBot and roll back the previous user as well. (And then after all of those intentional unsigned comments, I forget to sign this comment...) jcgoble3 (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I find Twinkle generally very user friendly, but the rollback has always been an exception. In histories, there's only one rollback link. In diffs, there's "rollback (AGF)", "rollback", and "rollback (VANDAL)". I suppose the first and third are Twinkle things, since when someone looks who doesn't have Twinkle, such as Bishzilla, she only sees the "rollback" link? (But what is "normal" Twinkle rollback?) It would help if it said "Twinkle rollback" somewhere, or if it was present amongst the usual Twinkle links at the top of the page. Anyway, basically, you're saying that when SineBot has made the last edit on a page, I'm to click "rollback (VANDAL)" on that edit and then I get a choice of what to do? The trouble is I'm kind of scared to try that live, and I can't get the SineBot sandbox to sign my posts. :-( I made a post there 15 minutes ago, and it still hasn't been signed. :-( The sandbox instructions say "This page is listed in SineBot's high priority list, so your comments will be be very quickly signed as opposed to the bot waiting a delay before signing them." Yeah… so presumably I'm doing something wrong, because I can see the bot signed your posts quickly, Jcgoble3. This is getting sort of frustrating. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: A couple things: First, all three rollback links across the top of the diff are Twinkle's; the center one that just says "rollback" in light blue is what I referred to as "normal" Twinkle rollback. (There is also the "native" MediaWiki rollback, which is only seen with admin or rollback rights and appears on diffs to the right of the user links in the normal link color. Admins and rollbackers with Twinkle enabled will see both the MediaWiki rollback and Twinkle's rollback options on diffs, while only MediaWiki rollback appears on page histories.) As for SineBot, the bot didn't sign your posts because by default it only signs for users with under 800 edits. You need to opt back in via the instructions at User:SineBot#Opting_back_in_for_experienced_editors, as I have done, before the bot will sign your posts for you. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to install twinkle on my account, but cannot find it in my gadgets section. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Bluestar337 (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Bluestar337

@Bluestar337: It should appear once your account is autoconfirmed; that is, once you've made ten edits with the account and been registered for four days. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Bluestar337 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Bluestar337

Twinkle is once again posting unprotection requests in the "protected page edit request" section. See here and there. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I finally got annoyed enough with the constant reports of this problem to look at the code for myself. It turned out to be an easy fix (though I'm still not sure how the fix works), so here's a pull request. :) jcgoble3 (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Could somebody add these new warnings to twinkle? {{uw-paid1}}, {{uw-paid2}}, {{uw-paid3}}, {{uw-paid4}} Thanks SmartSE (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Smartse, please see the discussion above at the section "New template addition". Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, can Template:Uw-paid1, Template:Uw-paid2, Template:Uw-paid3, and Template:Uw-paid4 be added to Twinkle. These were recently created due to the Orangemoody case and are definetly handy. Thanks Tortle (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am almost certain these would work better as a single-issue notice and/or warning... — This, that and the other (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Concurring: I believe that this should be a single issue warning..--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be a bit bitey to treat a newbie editor who updates something minor about their employer the same as an obvious OrangeMoody-type sock who blatantly violates various policies and guidelines here. Instead, I would suggest keeping the tiered system, with a level 4 warning that can be immediately applied for blatant violators, while the lower level warnings would be more of an attempt to educate and obtain voluntary compliance, without driving away someone who made an honest mistake. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  20:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There's not going to be much occasion to use the lower level warnings, in particular I cannot think of circumstances where level 1 would be appropriate., Myself, I'll be using them at level 4, but I;d prefer we did a 4im, because that's even better. st we do both a 4 and a 4im. Next step is to add it as a block reason. DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's a single issue notice. A {{uw-coi}} with cash? Bazj (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

While editors are required to declare any payment, I know of no policy requiring a negative affirmation in response to a other editor's - quite possibly unfounded - suspicion. There is also a troubling disparity between the names of the templates ("Paid") and their content ("Advocacy"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

SPI clerk @Vanjagenije: was saying it's incorrect for Twinkle to add a new section to an SPI case for each new suspected sockpuppet, as @Andy Dingley: did here and here. Instead they should go under the same date header, as shown here.

I don't see any documentation on this, but if you go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and type in the name of a suspected sockmaster with a case open, it does the same thing as Twinkle, that is, creates a news section that repeats the date of the section header above rather than grouping them under the same header. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific question? Should Twinkle's behaviour be altered? I personally never use the SPI module so can't comment on its suitability for purpose, but I am happy to change it if SPI procedures have evolved over the years. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping to ping the SPI clerk @Vanjagenije: so they would come and explain the problem, because they twice asserted that the case additions were wrong, even after I pointed out that this is TW behavior. It appears consistent to me, but maybe Vanjagenije knows something I don't. If not, then there's nothing to see here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the point is more than when there is an open case, you should mention/add the new suspected socks to that case and not use Twinkle to file a new one... it'd probably require a lot more work but theoretically Twinkle could probably be tweaked to do that (or maybe just give a warning if there exists an open case). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: I don't really see the problem here. Twinkle is just a tool made to help users. That doesn't mean that the Twinkle is always right. If the case is already open, simply don't use Twininkle, but add new suspects manually. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again, if you go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and put in the name of an existing sockmaster, you will get the same behavior as Twinkle. I guess you can try sending a personal message to each and every editor who adds a sock report and hope they all remember to follow this undocumented workaround, but it doesn't sound fun to me. You might find yourself banging your head on something after nagging the 1,000th newbie not to use Twinkle OR the SPI page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Salvidrim!, Vanjagenije, Sorry to be late to the party on this discussion, but I think there's more to this than just whether there's an open case. Two examples off the top of my head...

1. Suppose that the SPI clerk has endorsed a CU on the suspected puppets. Aren't you inviting the user who spots more suspects to effectively self-endorse a CU on their additional suspects?
2. If a case has progressed to the point of the clerk recommending an admin action, and the case is open pending that action, do you really want new supects being added to that open case? Especially if the action is loosly worded as "Block all socks"?

Having made mistakes with my first couple of SPI cases (leaving an indented reply to a clerk's comment *gasp!*) I'm aware that SPI has more complexities than a casual user could be expected to know. Because of that I'd have to say that the clerk is the person best placed to judge whether the cases should be merged, not the reporting user, certainly not Twinkle. Bazj (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bazj: I never said that you should add more suspects to the case when the CU is already endorsed/declined or when the admin action is requested by the clerk. I said that you should add new suspects to the previous case when the previous case is classified as "open" (i.e. the {{SPI case status}} parameter is set to "open", or not set at all, which is the same). Vanjagenije (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, Thanks for clarifying. Bazj (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

ok thing one is ok, i hadn't know. but two is not ok the source is the german wikipedia side, and on this are both things with source.(ref 11 and 12).

Greetings Niki

Replied at User talk:79.235.163.56. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

When a redirect to a section is nominated for RfD, the daily log page should show the target section instead of just the underlying page of the section. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't Twinkle appearing at the top of articles? All I'm getting is "project page", "talk", "edit this page", "+", "*" and "page".--Launchballer 10:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Launchballer, I don't see a twinkleoptions.js in your pages. Have you checked the Twinkle setting in your gadgets? Bazj (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Bazj: Yes, I have, and it is indeed checked.--Launchballer 20:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please update installation as its no longer in gadgets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigsofrods (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rigsofrods: You need to be autoconfirmed to use Twinkle, thus it will not appear on your Gadgets tab until you reach the required threshold (4 days and 10 edits; you currently have 5 edits as of the time this is being typed). jcgoble3 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody add {{Histmerge}} to Twinkle, possibly under the merge section of the tags? Thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 13:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the notification on the top, I've filed a ticket on GitHub. Kharkiv07 (T) 17:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone not following the discussion on GitHub, {{histmerge}} is part of the CSD module, under criterion G6. If you would prefer to see it under Tag as well, say so either here or there. jcgoble3 (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Earlier today I closed a TfD for a bunch of orphaned, deprecated citation templates and dispatched the list of about 50 with D-batch, as I usually do with big group nominations. Great. Later I closed another TfD for a bunch of orphaned, deprecated citation templates and used D-batch again - absent-mindedly not noticing that the second list had over 800 entries. Then I was surprised to refresh and get a database locked message. Oops! No lasting harm done, but should this function have a (smaller?) maximum list size, or a throttle, or is the best answer "watch what you're doing, you idiot"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

D-batch ought to work with 800 pages. It does them in batches (50 per batch, if I remember correctly). How exactly did the error manifest itself? Did it show up beside every page that you attempted to delete? Did it start off by working correctly, then failed from a given point onwards? — This, that and the other (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I was procrastinating while at work multitasking at the time, so not watching closely, but:

• Partway through, the popup window stopped updating or responding. Not sure where in the list this happened.
• I tried to purge the sandbox page I'd stashed the list on, thinking I'd find where in the list the redlinks stopped, and then got the "database locked" message.
• A few minutes later I tried again and found that everything had been deleted after all.
• I then checked my watchlist and got the "high database lag" message.

So it did work, but not very smoothly, and either caused a transient problem or gave the appearance of it. (FWIW, I'd been around on and off for a couple of hours prior and had seen no database/lag messages beforehand.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. Well, so long as it worked; that's the main thing. If the WMF operations guys tell us to slow Twinkle down, we'll comply, but until then, WP:PERF applies.

As an aside, do you find that the batch delete and undelete tools meet your needs? I'm always keen to hear feedback from users of the batch tools. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a little startling to think you're deleting a couple dozen pages and the next thing you see is "oops, you broke the wiki!" :)

But generally batch delete is the best thing since sliced bread. I usually use it for batch TfDs or for deleting templates with a lot of subpages. A couple of ideas would be: 1) the 'reason' field is currently just free text, but having the usual drop-down list might be useful too; 2) when gathering linked pages to put in the checklist, offer a filter by namespace. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Spam-warn has been nominated for merging with Template:Db-spam-notice. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The link above is incorrect. This is the correct link: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_7#Template:Spam-warn. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

An IP user seems to be using Twinkle here. Is this an oddity or something, or did the user just paste in an edit summary? It seems like the latter, given that the IP user reverted the edit before mine, which was made by a registered user, but then claimed to have "reverted 2 edits" by the registered user.

This is just unusual, so I'd simply like to know how the heck that came about. Epic Genius (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: A Twinkle message was simulated. Given the edit history of the page at the time of the diff you linked to, Twinkle would not have left that exact message at that time. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Etamni: Yeah, that was what I suspected. Thanks. Epic Genius (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Since yesterday (1 October), Twinkle stopped working on a lot of pages on my watch list. An example is Siachen conflict. I don't get a Twinkle tab in the menubar and the rollback/welcome buttons for diffs are gone as well. Is anybody else having such problems? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've had this problem for a couple of weeks (and other scripts have been failing too, for example Visual File Change on Commons). --Stefan2 (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Same here. The problem appears to affect only main/article namespace pages. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've mainly observed the problem in the file namespace, but I'm less likely to look for the Twinkle menu in other namespaces. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I only checked three namespaces: main/article, user, and Wikipedia. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you using the Twinkle gadget or importing a script? What's your browser and skin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilN (talk • contribs) 13:09, 2 October 2015‎

I'm using gadget. The same problem appears on both Firefox 41.0 and Chrome 45.0. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a new problem, I noticed it at India and Lal Bahadur Shastri today. I use the gadget, FF 41.0.1, monobook and no settings change in a while. —SpacemanSpiff 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

When pieces of the UI are missing, does Firefox display a "Waiting for..." message in its status bar? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the "Content Translation" beta feature. Go into Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and turn it off, then see if Twinkle and other scripts come back for you... — This, that and the other (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I turned off the "Content Translation" beta feature and now the problem is gone. Thanks. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Worked for me too, cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks everybody! - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm using the gadget. I've never had any beta features switched on. Any idea why Twinkle fails loading when using 'action=view' but not when using 'action=edit'? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you try following the steps at WP:JSERROR and report back here? — This, that and the other (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • This was solved by commenting out an unneeded line from my global.js script. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I seem only intermittently able to find the useful "promotional username and promotional edits" (Uw-spamublock) blocking alternative in Twinkle. I used it a couple of days ago, but where has it gone now..? Could somebody please tell me the path to it, once I've clicked "Block" and the usual "Block or issue block template" has come up? Bishonen | talk 13:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: You weren't looking at a page in an IP's userspace were you? For registered users you should see the "Promotional username, hard block" option under the "Username violations" heading in the presets dropdown — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Not in an IP's userspace, certainly. I was amusing myself with the user creation log. The funny thing is, the option you describe is exactly what I have been using, only yesterday it didn't result in spamublock but something different, much shorter. I had to go dig out the spamublock in the old way and paste it in by hand (the horror). Does Twinkle run to glitches like that? Anyway, never mind, now it's doing what I want again, . Thank you, MusikAnimal. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

No so long as you're in a registered account's userspace you should see those options. Do you recall which user it was in particular? — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Twinkle automatically mark article as patrolled when tagged with CSD while when using WP:PROD (with Twinkle) on any unpatrolled article, the article doesn't automatically gets patrolled. So, should an editor "mark it as patrolled" manually or leave it. What is the standard procedure in these cases ? Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Peppy Paneer: I think patrolling should be done manually, in that case. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Yeah that's what I do. Had a doubt so thought of discussing. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it alright to use Twinkle for reverting edits during a good faith content dispute? The reason I ask is because I don't know much about Twinkle and at the beginning of the Twinkle project page is, "Twinkle is a set of JavaScript functions that gives autoconfirmed registered users many extra options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks, and to help them deal with acts of vandalism or unconstructive edits." --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Even before that text, there is a box that says "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies". So if you wouldn't make the revert normally, don't make it using Twinkle.

Twinkle has a good faith reversion option, which specifically mentions that you are reverting in good faith in the edit summary. However, bear in mind that reversion isn't always the best way to resolve a "good faith content dispute". Consider talking it out with the other user(s) - if the faith is good, so to speak, you should hopefully be able to reach an agreement. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this.

Can anyone tell me why Twinkle lists criteria that don't apply to certain namespaces? For example, it lists G1 and G2 when I use it on user pages, but neither criteria applies to user pages. It doesn't list the user page criteria on articles, so I'm wondering why it lets me tag user pages with these invalid (for user pages) criteria?

Thanks

Adam9007 (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, we are discussing changing the format of the reports to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Is there any easy way to modify the output produced by Twinkle? One example: I removed the result from the heading but Twinkle is still including it. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've posted my thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Changing headings. This should be easy provided we have consensus for the change. My only concern is if other wikis using Twinkle are relying on the current format, or in Twinkle's case, the {{AN3 report}} template. @This, that and the other: thoughts? — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about other wikis, they will have to sort it out themselves. — This, that and the other (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else frequently use "Disruptive editing" or "Adding unsourced content" as reasons for pending protection? If so, can we get them added to the PC preset list? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Support - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Both of these are very common rationale for protection, and the same can certainly be applied to pending changes given it's just less frequent. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, works great, thanks! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Could a warning be added to the protection process when selecting for unprotection asking the user to ask the protecting admin first about unprotection? Currently, it means having to ask the requesting user if they asked about it first but having something to explain that (possibly with a link to the talkpage of the admin) before getting that far would be helpful. tutterMouse (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

tutterMouse, see User_talk:MusikAnimal/Archive_20#AIV_weirdness. Courtesy pinging @MusikAnimal: --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that protections can be moved and the script would have to backtrack those makes this a little tricky. It of course can be done, but maybe as a first step we can have it say "Please check with protecting admin first (protection log) (move log)" and let the user figure it out? — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping NeilN, good to know I wasn't the only one considering this. MusikAnimal, the warning is there merely as a front line reminder that RFPP should be the second place you goto, not the first (and definitely not for WP:OTHERPARENT if you got declined by the protecting admin). Letting the user figure it out isn't bad but personally I think having the path of least resistance (in this case, simply telling the user whose protection is the one currently standing and pointing them to their talkpage) would be best but if it's not technically feasible or simply a bigger order than needed then a simple link to the log for the page is good enough. tutterMouse (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI that I've almost got this done — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Before this gets implemented, I have one request: could this warning not appear when requesting a page have its protection downgraded from full protection to template protection? Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) @NeilN and TutterMouse: I doubt either of you have GitHub accounts, but even if you don't I invite you to give any input you might have based on what I'm come up with: [3] (you can comment here). In short, this change is pretty cool as it will allow you to see who originally applied protection to a page after there were page moves, a common headache we have to deal with. The protecting admin will be shown next to each entry of the "Current protections" that you see when you open up the Protection module, and that links to their talk page. When you attempt to request unprotection it will prompt you if you've contacted them. The only issue is if NeilN move-protects a page, then I semi-protect the same page, the API says that I was the one who move-protected it. That's essentially beyond our control, but not a huge issue in my opinion.

@Steel1943: Is there consensus to bypass this practice for that scenario? I would think the same rules apply. Anyway it's just a warning, you can still hit OK and continue with the RFPP report — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• @MusikAnimal: My only concern is that the "warning" you are about to implement is an additional confirmation screen, similar to what was recently done with the Rollback function. If this is not the case, if anything, if it is possible for the warning to be less noticeable on my above-mentioned scenario, that would be preferred. If neither of these are the case, I would then have no concerns. Steel1943 (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal:, yes there is. Per the WP:RFPP page: "Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) MusikAnimal, but if you are looking for actual consensus, I would say that was formed a while back when the Template Editor right was created, and the RFPP stipulations regarding how to request protection downgrades were established. So, I'd say the consensus is the fact that the Template Editor permission and Template Protection exist. Steel1943 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In other words, what NeilN said. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, it should be easy to implement this exception — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, take that back completely. For admins it's clear what you're unprotecting, for the requesters it's just a big "Reason" text box where you say what you want to be unprotected. For instance, you might want to remove the move protection and not the full protection, or remove the full protection entirely. I guess it's safe to assume 90 something percent of the time if you are requesting unprotection of a fully-protected template, you are referring to the full protection down to template? Otherwise we might need to either sidestep this request or implement a new way to request unprotection (won't happen anytime soon) — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that when using Twinkle to flag an article for WP:G10 speedy deletion (the criterion for attack pages) the script automatically posts a scary red-hand warning on the creator's talk page, like this one. This is problematic for a few reasons:

1. when it's clear vandalism, this practice violates WP:DENY;
2. occasionally these pages are created in good faith, and the tag violates WP:DTTR and WP:AGF;
3. the warning does not say which page was nominated (although that's probably good in the first case);
4. it's scary; and
5. the warning cannot be turned off.

I would like especially to see point #5 change. It is not mandatory to post the warning message, neither should it be mandatory when using Twinkle. Alternatively (or in addition) I would like the option to use a warning with less strong language which links to the page in question, such as simply posting the generic {{CSDNotice}}. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

With regard to linking to the page, I believe that was deliberately removed because the title of the page often contains attacks and/or BLP violations, in addition to whatever may be in the text of the page. The page can't be linked, not even piped, without including a potentially BLP-violating and RevisionDeletable title in the wikitext of the talk page. I would imagine that some of these titles already have to be redacted from the deletion log with not-insignificant frequency; best not to intentionally add it to a wiki page if we can help it. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• I wonder if it's possible to have two different versions? One for AGF and one for Vandals, like we have for rollback. The AGF version would look like a normal CSD message without the scary warning, and the vandal one would look like the current version. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• I don't think WP:DTTR applies here; regulars should know better than to create attack pages, so if they do, they really ought to be notified. Similarly for AGF: how many "good faith attack pages" have you ever seen? Re "the warning cannot be turned off", yes it can, you just need to turn off the "Notify page creator if possible" box when nominating the page. If you have concerns with the warning template {{db-attack-notice}}, you can edit it directly or discuss on the talk page, but I would suggest that it is serving its purpose well. — This, that and the other (talk)

Someone creates a stub about some subject, and then another person (or group) later hijacks it and turns it into an attack page. Arguably, the page creator was making a good-faith effort. Not sure how common this scenario is. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Etamni In that case, you could revert the "hijacking" edits and restore the article to a non-attack version. There is no need to nominate the page for speedy deletion; at most, the attacking edits could be revision-deleted (a process that Twinkle does not handle). — This, that and the other (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

In Ivan's example, SimonTrew makes a good faith disambiguation, but it was disparaging to a town and a company. He didn't mean it to be an attack, but you could take it as one. In instances like that, Twinkle's default G10 notice is completely inappropriate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh I seem to be mistaken. I thought that when choosing G10 the "notify page creator" box was not available, thus the notice is automatic. That seems not to be the case. If I have occasion to use G10 again I'll pay better attention. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Tavix: The way I personally think about G10 is, if you don't think the user deserves the severe tone of {{db-attack-notice}}, you should think about using a different criterion. So I most likely wouldn't use G10 in that situation. That is just my view though; of course, you can use G10 and elect not to notify the user if you like. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have rollback rights, can I use Twinkle then?--IllusIon (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Twinkle can be used by any registered account which is autoconfirmed - registered for four days, and with at least ten edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I mostly use batch deletion for group nominations at TfD. Templates frequently have a lot of subpages (sandboxes and testcases and so forth) which are easy to forget about. The D-batch dialog currently offers the option to delete talk pages and redirects to a page; could/should this also contain an additional checkbox to delete subpages of the original page and its corresponding talk page? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the section on appropriate use should be changed, expanded.

Right now, it only has 3 sentences. The first 2 are generic about reverting on WP and not specific to twinkle, so no help as a reference for those interested in Twinkle per se. The latter sentence is specific to twinkle: "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes, unless an appropriate edit summary is used."

However, it is clearly contradictory, which is why I marked it:

1. twinkle should not be used to undo good-faith changes.
2. twinkle can be used to undo good faith changes with an edit summary.

Since an edit summary should always be used nowadays, twinkle can be used to undo good-faith changes, which contradicts 1)

Does the word "unless" hint at a "rare exception"? Or is Twinkle regularly used to undo good faith changes?

In my editing experience Twinkle is regularly used to undo good faith changes. there is even a post by Bob K31416 from 14 October 2015 in the section "appropriate use" above. Are there objective data about TW use? Can they be collected by looking at reverts and the choice of vandalism vs other and determining the percentage? that would help.

Conclusion: Twinkle is not an antivandalism tool in the majority of edits in my experience. it is installed by people who like to save time and facilitates reverts of any kind.

Proposal:

• Twinkle reverts should be restricted to antivandalism, clear-cut function.

Otherwise, I feel

• Twinkle shouldnt be "advertised" as antivandalism tool and doesnt deserve the policeman logo.

Everyone can revert anything anyway without Twinkle, without the appearance of somehow a "special" authority of a vandalism fighter. how many editors get intimidated by it, not knowing that any autoconfirmed user can install twinkle?

Please note that I do not blame people for installing Twinkle. I have considered installing it myself, but always resisted, because of this dubious setup. I am for this tool, but it needs to be brought back into line with what -I think- was its original purpose. After 8 years of this gadget, a history section would also be helpful. --Wuerzele (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The wording could use some adjusting but Twinkle is clearly not only used for vandalism. Installed you have the following options: [rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)].--TMCk (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, --TMCk. re "Tw clearly not only used for vandalism": exactly my point, so why not change the description in the lede/ the page ?--Wuerzele (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your conundrum is that Twinkle is both an anti-vandalism tool and a more general method to revert changes. The thing is that there are 3 different ways to revert with Twinkle: normal, AGF, and vandalism. Choosing the normal or AGF option in Twinkle will prompt you to provide an edit summary that gets attached to your revert (the AGF option also attaches a specific comment that the edits were in good faith). In contrast, the "vandalism" option does not prompt you for an edit summary; rather, it reverts the edits with only the canned "reverted vandalism by x" edit summary attached. It's this distinction that we're talking about here. Twinkle as a whole can be used to undo good faith changes, precisely because it can allow you to leave a more detailed edit summary. But the anti-vandalism functions of Twinkle must not be used on good faith edits, because they don't allow it. Does that make sense? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Writ Keeper yes, I see what you are saying by anti-vandalism functions of Twinkle don't allow use on good faith edits.

but do you understand the conundrum how this change of use or mixed use should be reflected in a) its description and b) its logo ? ( i am saying the conundrum, not your conundrum, as you said. i dont think it's personal, but maybe you dont want to own up to the issue.)--Wuerzele (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's certainly not personal; I'm not a Twinkle dev, nor did I write any of this page, so I'm not planning on taking responsibility. :) All I meant by "your" conundrum is "the conundrum you posed". I had actually originally phrased it as "your question", but then I saw that you didn't really frame it as a question, so I changed the word before posting.

Anyhoo, yeah I kinda see what you're getting at, but I don't really think it's an issue. I'd say that your first point (twinkle should not be used to undo good-faith changes) is just incorrect. That's not what the text says: the text says that Twinkle should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used (emphasis mine). You can't just leave off the "unless an appropriate edit summary is used" part, because that's the key to the whole thing. Functions of anti-vandalism tools can be used to revert good-faith edits if and only if they allow you to leave an appropriate edit summary that explains why you're reverting a good faith edit. Twinkle has some functions that allow that, so those functions of Twinkle can be used to revert good-faith edits. Other functions of Twinkle--the rollback(vandal) button--do not allow one to leave an appropriate edit summary, so those functions cannot be used to revert good faith edits. Rollback has no functions that allow one to write an edit summary, so rollback as a whole cannot be used on good faith edits. The point is that Twinkle does a lot of different things, some of which are geared towards anti-vandalism and some of which aren't, so a single blanket statement like "Twinkle should not be used to undo good-faith changes, ever" is just not correct. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Writ Keeper I split the quoted sentence in two semantic units- did you fail to see that ? and then I made a comment about the conjunction, that connects the two "unless" and asked for data to back up/ confirm or refute the "unless". So my point is more nuanced.

you didnt respond to it. Nobody actually. you chose to reiterate that Twinkle isnt JUST an antivandalism tool.. yadiyadiya, I have acknowledged this from the beginning plus above instead of talking past the point, maybe you could stick the info in your comment into the main page, where this info is lacking?

the point is the twinkle page is not reflecting Twinkle well. I've asked questions if data exist.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Then I don't understand your point. What is contradictory about "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used"? Are you objecting to the labeling of Twinkle as an "anti-vandalism tool"? That's not an incorrect label; Twinkle *is* an anti-vandalism tool, and it's the anti-vandalism parts of it that are of particular relevance to the "abuse" section. It's not *just* an anti-vandalism tool, but nowhere on the page does it say that Twinkle is *just* an anti-vandalism tool. The very first sentence talks about many extra options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks. It can be an antivandalism tool at the same time as being all the other stuff that it is.

And also, it's not just having an edit summary that makes using Twinkle or rollback or whatever okay. It's having an appropriate edit summary; you left out the word "appropriate" from your breakdown above, and it's pretty important. Things like rollback or the rollback(vandal) function of twinkle all leave *some* kind of edit summary. But the distinction is that those edit summaries are canned, and don't explain why the edit was reverted. For reverting vandalism, that's okay; it's assumed that the edit was reverted because it was vandalism. But a reversion of a good-faith edit should have an actual explanation of why the revert happened. So that's the difference; not all edit summaries are created equal.

As for your request for data...I have to admit that I'm at a loss as to why that would matter. Twinkle is an anti-vandalism tool (among other things); whether it's used *more* for other things or not doesn't change that fact. What does it matter? Why would we want to constrain Twinkle to being only for anti-vandalism? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to comment about the logo... it's quite fitting in my opinion. Twinkle offers powerful patrolling functionality beyond the different types of reverts. For instance, the new page patroller, delinking, blocking/page protection for admins, etc. Not to mention Mr. Twinkly is iconic :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

re "Twinkle offers powerful patrolling functionality beyond the different types of reverts." wow, very musically sounding, amazing ! Do you work in the advertising business maybe ? -:) User:MusikAnimal, could you reply to my q in my initial post, objective description, objective data, plse, whenever you so feel moved? no urgency whatsoever.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele:, perhaps you could suggest the particular changes you are looking for when you stated, I think the section on appropriate use should be changed, expanded. Meanwhile, think of Twinkle like a Swiss Army knife -- one tool, many functions. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Etamni Re "particular changes you are looking for": have been above. I underlined them for you.

As far as the exact phrasing to expand the section: twinkle users should describe the "appropriate use" (I don't use twinkle), particularly since my observations and suggestions seem not to have registered.

I do like your swiss army knife MUCH better than this policeman logo, more neutral and more informative. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• OK, to the extent that there is a proposal above, I'll say oppose to restricting Twinkle to anti-vandalism as this is only one of the purposes of this tool, and I use it for more than just anti-vandalism. To changing the Twinkle "logo" I'll say neutral as I don't really care one way or another, but I would remind the OP and others that police officers, like Swiss Army knives, serve multiple functions. One of those functions is law enforcement, but there are others. To the extent that Twinkle is advertised as anything, I agree that such material should extol all the virtues of this great tool, not just the anti-vandalism aspects (but this does not mean that all of its features need be mentioned every time someone mentions that Twinkle can help with a particular task). Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

[User:Etamni|Etamni]], excellent. so now edits to reflect this are needed.( i didnt see your reply because no ping)--Wuerzele (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

When I try to leave a TB for a named section in the Articles for Creation Helpdesk the links to the named section fail. Repeatable. Fiddle Faddle 12:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks for the message. It looks like the AFC helpdesk notification is pretty screwed up - instead of linking to the section, it is linking to a nonexistent article. It also seems to leave "undefined" at the top of the user's talk page, which is very strange. I'll try to fix it. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way for me to see, for example, how many times I have used Twinkle to nominate articles for speedy, prod, or regular deletion? Let me know. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 00:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@KDS4444: For now you can do a edit summary search, using the search terms "speedy deletion", "Nominated for deletion", etc. However moving forward you can have Twinkle log speedy and prod nominations for you. Go to WP:TW/PREF and under the section for speedy deletion check "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations". It looks like you already have the PROD log turned on. I don't think Twinkle logs XfD nominations, but not a bad idea for a new feature — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle doesn't log XFDs because you can look them up in your contributions, which regular users cannot do for successful CSDs and PRODs for which the page creator was not notified. Having said that, people have asked for an XFD log in the past. Personally I would prefer to see it implemented as a general tool on Tool Labs that would work for both Twinkle-related and manual XFDs. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Mattythewhite uses twinkle to revert warnings and discussion from their user page without discussion. --82.132.212.162 (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

He's entitled to remove comments from his page, see WP:BLANKING, and it doesn't matter what tool he uses to do so. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC).

(Though it always looks a bit dodgy when someone does it, even if it isn't against any policy, which it isn't.) KDS4444^Talk 06:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There has been consensus to move Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Part of this consensus includes merging the functionality of Wikipedia:Non-free content review into this page. Consensus for this change can be found here (on WP:VPPROP). (This notice is placed here instead of making an immediate change since this change affects multiple bots and gadgets like Twinkle.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Thanks for the notice. Should Twinkle's functionality of posting at NFCR be deprecated, or removed altogether, or left alone for the time being until the merge is complete? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: At the present time, I believe that the current situation should not change until an explanation of WP:NFCR's functionality is added into the documentation of Wikipedia:Files for deletion/heading (as well as any other changes that may need to be made at the top of Wikipedia:Files for deletion), which has not happened yet. When the aforementioned change is made, the NFCR option should probably be removed from Twinkle altogether, but with Twinkle's FFD explanation to be amended to include a bit about NFCR's purpose prior to the merge. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This, that and the other (and whoever else this may concern), at this point, per this edit, as well as other edits on WP:NFCR itself to mark it historical, WP:NFCR has been "shut down". At this point, the "Non-free context review" option should be removed from Twinkle to avoid any new discussions being posted there. Also, the description for the "Files for deletion" option would probably best serve Twinkle's users if its description were updated to read something like this:

File may need to be deleted, or file's compliance with non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC) is disputed.

. (However, please do not update "Files for deletion" to "Files for discussion" yet: the bot that manages FFD has yet to be updated to use the new base page name while creating the daily subpages.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Steel. It's on its way, should be here soon. Let me know when FFD is renamed. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: I noticed that WP:NFCR has now been removed from Twinkle. Thanks! I'll try to keep you informed when "files for deletion" should be renamed "files for discussion". Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• @This, that and the other: In Twinkle, "Files for deletion" can now be safely renamed "Files for discussion". (This is basically a repeat of what I said on User talk:AnomieBOT, but posted here for the record on Twinkle's talk page.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @MusikAnimal: 98f24d8546640ef22b2d4116d11025999c0297f6 — This, that and the other (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Synced [4] — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• @This, that and the other: It seems that one change in the code may have not been made made: when Twinkle adds the FFD tag edit notice to the file page, it still reads as

  (Nominated for deletion; see ...)

  To fix this, it may be best to mimic how WP:RFD tags' edit notices are generated that appear as

  (Listed for discussion at ...)

  - Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Has there been any progress on this? Steel1943 (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I made the change just after you posted the request, but I didn't want to trouble MusikAnimal again to sync the repository, since it wasn't urgent. However, he doesn't seem to have noticed the change, so I'll ping him here. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Nope, didn't notice the change, but feel free to ping anytime about syncing :) Should be all set — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@This, that and the other and MusikAnimal: Thanks again. In fact, I think that may have been the final necessary update to Twinkle in regards to the "deletion" to "discussion" change at FFD. Steel1943 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What happened with Twinkle's checkbox for old replaceable fair use images, uploaded before 2006 or so? I needed to tag a file uploaded in 2005, and discovered that the checkbox was gone! --Stefan2 (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I boldly removed it from Twinkle and the relevant template 8 months ago, because eight years after the notice period was reduced to two days, I think the need to grandfather in an extra five days' notice for old images is completely unnecessary. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, deletions need to me made in accordance with policy, and neither Twinkle nor the template are policy. I note that different policies say different things, though: WP:F7 says two days for all replaceable files while WP:NFCCE mentions the seven-day rule for older uploads. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I did look up WP:CSD before making the change, and since there was no mention of a seven-day period, I assumed it was something that was informally implemented in the template. Personally I would favour seeking consensus to have the grandfather clause removed from NFCC; I don't think it serves any purpose anymore. I assume the reason it was put there is that people uploading before July 2006 might have uploaded a file without providing a FUR, in the knowledge that they had seven days to do so before the file would be deleted. That is clearly no longer relevant in 2015. If I had time, I would open a discussion at WT:NFCC... — This, that and the other (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 54#Template:Di-no source. There are currently a couple of discrepancies between WP:CSD and WP:NFCCE. The templates sometimes follow WP:CSD, sometimes WP:NFCCE. I'd suggest trying to clean up this at some point so that both policies state the same thing. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean... this has to be overpowered for an (auto)conformed user. You can rollback something without the rollback permissions. Bullofdoom (talk · contribs)

@Bullofdoom: Any editor, even one without a named account, can do the kind of rollback that Twinkle uses, using the instructions at Help:Reverting#Manual reverting. Twinkle merely makes it easier. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do we have a separate rollback user group in the first place? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question, Stefan. The community traditionally seems happy to allow Twinkle rollback (which predates MediaWiki's built-in rollback feature) to be available to all autoconfirmed users, while restricting MediaWiki rollback (which was actually unbundled from the admin toolset) to approved users through the WP:RFP/R process. I would oppose any moves to restrict Twinkle rollback to rollbackers, in part because Twinkle rollback is often suggested as a way for users to meet the "applicants must have a measurable track record of counter-vandalism" criterion set out at the RfP page. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The MediaWiki rollback facility, requiring the additional user right, is more powerful than the Twinkle version because (1) quicker, (2) no confirmation stage, (3) no call to explain in an edit summary. Also, the user right is a gateway to other counter-vandalism tools - STiki and Huggle: Noyster (talk), 10:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made changes to the {{Not English}} template. The language parameter stays the same. The section parameter can now be set to yes or no, depending on if it's a section or not. Listed parameter stays. The big change is that the template is now dated and will add a proposed deletion to pages that fulfill listed=yes, section=no and TIMESTAMP=CURRENT - 14 DAYS. This means pages (not sections) that are listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English and have had the Not English template for over 14 days will be proposed. Greetings from rayukk | talk 16:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rayukk: No, you're wrong; the biggest change is that it now needs to be substituted... — This, that and the other (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I recently noticed that Twinkle is adding a "help" parameter on some (if not all) db-* tags. The documentation on the template pages does not mention this parameter: what is it? Should I add it when I add or modify speedy tags by hand? —teb728 t c 09:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The help=off parameter causes the template to omit the part that talks about notifying the page creator. When Twinkle notifies the page creator automatically, it passes this parameter, since that part of the template is needless. I thought it would be a good idea to mirror the XFD templates, which have had this for a long time, and reduce the height of the CSD message by removing the notification detail when it is not needed.

As for implementation, I have only implemented it into {{db-test}} so far, just as an initial "test". I'll roll it out further if there are no objections. There is certainly no need to use the parameter when personally tagging pages for speedy deletion, though you can if you want, I suppose. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Not english needs to be subst now please fix. its annoying to have to go back in to add subst: to the not english tag. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hardly a bug; the user above made changes to the template itself recently, apparently without any discussion or forewarning... — This, that and the other (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Template_talk:Not_English#Dated --rayukk | talk 11:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rayukk: Some more warning would have been appreciated, per the tag on the template's documentation that says "If you plan to make breaking changes to this template ... please notify Twinkle's users and maintainers". It would be very helpful if you could take this into consideration next time you modify a template with this tag, to avoid creating breakage and problems for other users. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I definitely will! Sorry about the delay in reporting the change. Greetings from rayukk | talk 21:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: The change to this template has been reverted, please can you revert any changes that have been made to Twinkle--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jac16888 and Rayukk: Please discuss this on the template talk page, and once you reach an agreement, let us know here. I don't want to be continually flipping between subst and no subst... — This, that and the other (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing Twinkle in my Gadgets? --Giooo95 (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You are not yet WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. -- GB fan 02:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This question seems to get asked a lot, so I added a brief bullet point to the "Quick info" box on WP:TW. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah thank you for letting me know. :) Giooo95 (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk namespaces should not be listed at all under "Unlink" in Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences, per the message "Avoid selecting any talk namespaces, as Twinkle might end up unlinking on talk archives (a big no-no)." on the right side. There should be only 13 checkboxes rather than 26. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

People might have legitimate reasons to unlink in talk namespaces, particularly when removing deleted or non-free files. We should leave it to the discretion of the user. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it is useful to delink deleted files from talk namespaces, but I find Unlink useful for removing non-free images from talk namespaces per WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

G'day from Australia. A recent discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board has highlighted an issue, and I would value your comments. Sometimes an article is nominated for deletion, and a notice dutifully sent to the Talk page of the original author. However, that author may no longer be active, in which case there is no engagement unless somebody happens to notice. Would it be feasible to have Twinkle check whether the article being nominated for deletion is tagged as belonging to a Wikiproject, and if so to notify that project? This way, it may come to the attention of a suitable person even if the initial editor is not around any more.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

N Never mind - Frickeg pointed out to me that there is a bot (AAlertBot) which automatically populates the "article alerts" list with any project articles that are added to AfD. Which makes my question above kinda redundant. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

G'day from one Aussie to another :) That's pretty much what I was going to say. If Twinkle posted on WikiProject talk pages, I expect that some WikiProjects would end up inundated. The bot provides a less "noisy" way to keep track of the updates, so you can make sure obviously notable topics avoid getting deleted! — This, that and the other (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it just that I can't see which bit of the dialogue lets me add {{Uw-paid1}} and its colleague templates? If it's me please spoon feed me. If not please may we have them added? Fiddle Faddle 15:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There was some concern about them at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 37#New_template_addition. In particular, I was really left scratching my head as to why they were implemented as a incremental series, and not as a single-issue warning... — This, that and the other (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I am also concerned about the incremental series. One is either paid or not. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I nominated Roadhouse at Diefenbach Corners for speedy deletion using the company version of WP:A7. When I looked at the creator's talk page it looked like this with the reference at the end right before the signature. I wondered if I did something wrong so I removed the speedy deletion tag and readded it. The notification on the creator's talk page came up exactly the same. Not sure where the error is. -- GB fan 15:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Did a little looking and found that it happened when Harry the Dirty Dog notified Hippy hoinorty about the speedy deletion nomination of Illusion Productions, so it isn't just me. -- GB fan 15:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I found the problem. {{Db-inc-notice}} was modified with the text, I have reverted the edit. -- GB fan 15:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have been removed from the Twinkle user warning list (the single-issue notices sublist), or I can't find it if it's still there. Is it possible to add it back? Thanks, ansh666 20:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I removed many notices from Twinkle as the list was enormous and badly needed pruning. I believe Cyberbot I notifies (or pings) users if they have forgotten steps of the AfD process, right? Either way I do not think this is used enough to be included in default list of notices. You can add it your custom warnings at WP:TW/PREF in the "Warn user" section, and it will appear in a "Custom warnings" dropdown in Twinkle. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot does not do anything for incomplete AfDs beyond listing them at WP:BADAFD. Thanks for the heads up about the custom warnings thing, though. ansh666 08:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I still use {{uw-imageuse}} from time to time. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@K6ka: If we can combine {{uw-imageuse}} and {{uw-uploadfirst}}, then update the links to more friendly pages, we can maybe add it back. Right now it links to huge walls of text (Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, etc), this is surely not very newbie-friendly, which is the target audience for these notices. I figure it's better to write a personal message. Note also there's a huge edit filter message that shows up when they try to add external images, so the user has already been informed that it isn't going to work. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As a starting measure, I have WP:BOLDly merged {{uw-imageuse}} into {{uw-uploadfirst}}, as they were nearly identical to begin with. It's far too late here (nearly 5 AM) to hunt down better link targets right now, though. jcgoble3 (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Can a post be made to a consistent location before the lists are fiddled with? I just spent five minutes going through the lists looking for uw-imageuse, wondering if I was going senile. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sorry I didn't keep you all informed. Most of the ones I removed seemed unlikely to be used, but I guess actually removing them is one way of finding out if that's really the case =P We now have {{uw-uploadfirst}} which also covers uw-imageuse, compliments of Jcgoble3. Adding it back means just one more entry and not two. We've gotten at least two complaints about that template, so maybe it's worth putting back. Here are the rest of the notices that were removed, and my justification:

• {{uw-2redirect}} - pretty sure a bot fixes these?
• {{uw-articlesig}} - button to add signature was removed from the edit toolbar when editing in mainspace
• {{uw-csd}} - better you say why the speedy criteria they chose was not applicable, and newcomers shouldn't be patrolling new pages
• {{uw-directcat}} - surely a rare occurrence
• {{uw-fuir}} - I believe a bot does this, or those AWB people do. Doesn't happen enough to warrant inclusion here
• {{uw-incompleteAFD}} - I could have sworn Cyberbot issued such warnings...?
• {{uw-nonfree}} - this is a warning, not a notice, and should happen when we nominate the image for deletion
• {{uw-notaiv}} - just explain the issue to them
• {{uw-notifysd}} - this doesn't say what warnings to use
• {{uw-notvand}} - tell them which edit was mislabeled
• {{uw-patrolled}} - very rare, NPP is supposed to be for experienced editors, and they'll likely be using semi-automated tools that mark the page as patrolled
• {{uw-probation}} - we will be adding a way to issue sanction warnings in the future, otherwise tell them what the situation is
• {{uw-refimprove}} - we usually issue a general notice on adding unverifiable content
• {{uw-removevandalism}} - not used very often, I can only guess
• {{uw-repost}} - this is speedy deletion criteria and has it's own template
• {{uw-samename}} - renames now happen on meta, and has got to be a pretty rare. The global renamers or stewards should let them know of the issue
• {{uw-uaa}} - rarely used, and newcomers don't usually report to UAA
• {{uw-upincat}} - a bot removes or "deactivates" these categories, or should
• {{uw-userspacenoindex}} - we draftify user pages like this

Feedback welcomed. Admittedly here I'm just looking for any ole reason to remove the notice from the list, and my rationale revolves around the notion that such notices are intended for newcomers (WP:DTR). If we feel these some of these are used enough we can add them back, but remember you can always add them to your custom warnings at WP:TW/PREF in the "Warn user" section. Some of the ones like {{uw-probation}} aren't of much use unless you supply parameters to them, when Twinkle only offers basic params such as the article name and additional text. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to put back uw-notaiv. It's a good message for rookie recent change patrollers with plenty of helpful info. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if {{uw-aiv}} (currently in Twinkle under "single issue notices") and {{uw-notaiv}} are sufficiently similar that they could be merged? Just an idea... — This, that and the other (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That seems sensible, they are quite similar. Another thing is these AIV templates are probably only used by admins, and limited to admins who actually work at AIV (not enough... but I digress). This brings back up the idea I had come up with of "extensions", one of which being the admin extension. It would add extra tags like these, and we'd throw it in the WP:ADMINGUIDE so admins know to add it once they get the bit. We could also refactor out the admin-only modules to be extensions, but perhaps there's the benefit of them behind ResourceLoader. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Would like {{uw-refimprove}} added back. This is for new users that whose edits are not being challenged, but trying to encourage them to add citations. On the other hand, {{uw-unsourced1}} says the the edit has been undone, which wouldn't be the case here.—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I see the value, but I strongly feel we shouldn't be sending new users to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:IC and H:FOOT, all in the same notice. Those are walls of text that they likely won't read anyway, and it is surely overwhelming. Perhaps we could reword it to send them only to WP:INTREF. Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia doesn't seem particularly welcoming either, in my opinion. My point is if we want to issue templated notices they need to be very straightforward and not assume the user wants to learn the ins and outs of the wiki, as often they just wanted to update some information and simply didn't know how or why they should add references — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that are ample opportunities to make warnings more user friendly. However, can that exercise should be done independent of its inclusion in Twinkle? The gadget is meant to automate templates that users would otherwise manually be entering. Moreover, one could customize their Twinkle preferences to add any templates that are missing from the default setup, which I had already done for uw-refimprove before wandering onto this talk page. Unless templates are TfDed, I'd rather they not be removed, as users like NeilN and myself will think we are growing senile over a template that had been on Twinkle for years that was, in fact, only removed recently. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, like I said I probably should have seeked some input ahead of time. It needed to be done. Too many templates makes the software cumbersome to use, so we must restrict it to the more widely used and appropriate templates. Fortunately, through this discussion we're learning what they are :) Another thought is we could make groups within the dropdown (like in the protection module). This would make the list easier to navigate and allow for a broader range of templates. I'll brainstorm and get back to you. To be clear I may help maintain Twinkle but by no means am I a sole dictator of what goes into it. Together we'll establish what's best for our users — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I can certainly appreciate cleaning things up and seeing if anyone screams; but yeah, put a note here, and at least people can respect that there was a discussion, they just didn't know about it :-)—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Spent some time trying to figure out why I couldn't block a user with the proper block reason before I saw this.

1. Why do only the username violation reasons disappear from the block list?
2. Can Twinkle display a note if the account is globally locked?

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Weird... according to the API this account does not exist. E.g. see the endpoint at [5] and also here. Not even sure how we've concluded it was globally locked? Maybe the stewards "vanished" it or something? — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The user was oversighted globally. I believe the unexpected behaviour in Twinkle to be due to a bug in MediaWiki, so I've filed a phab. I was told to make the phab private, so no links, sorry — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Could this template be added to the warn drop down? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 15:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Brightgalrs: In the "Warn/Notify user" dialog, select "Single issue warnings" from the first set of choices, and you should find uw-copyright listed in the second set of choices. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Aha! I just assumed warnings got more and more serious the farther you go down the dropdown so I didn't bother to read past the first few. Thanks. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 15:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

When the links show up, they don't work. But for the most part the menus won't show up. --Giooo95 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Just letting all other Twinkle users know that the template uw-longterm has been deleted as per TFD and needs to be removed from the 'Warn' function. JQTriple7 ^talk 08:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I think I nominated that one :) I'll remove it from Twinkle. Thanks for the courtesy notification. (Pinging MusikAnimal for a sync of all modules.) — This, that and the other (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Think I got everything... really need to work on that sync script! — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Dang, I was using that one a lot. Has nothing replaced it? Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet: See the TFD discussion, Basically, use {{uw-vandalism4im}} when a warning before blocking is desired; this serves the same purpose but unlike uw-longterm, complies with WP:DENY. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I still see it in Twinkle under Warn, Single issue warnings. It was reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 142#Something is wrong with a user-warning template. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks it wasn't actually removed from Twinkle. I've done so and just synced it, so it should disappear from the list soon — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

MusikAnimal Sorry, I forgot to push the commit! Thanks for following it up. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I reverted to this revision. The page Henagon was not added to my watchlist, even though "'Restore this version'" is checked under "Add pages to watchlist for these types of reversions:" in Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I see edit requests have been occasionally been made at the MediaWiki-namespace talk pages, such as MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Twinkle.js. Obviously this is less than ideal as we'd have to then update the git repo, which may or may not conflict with wasn't hasn't been synced yet. Should we redirect all of those talk pages here? — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• @MusikAnimal: Go for it. In fact, I'd just be bold and do it. (By the way, I've been brainstorming some ideas about how to make some of the XFD templates compatible with Twinkle for grouped nominations. I'm hoping to have something soon with at least either the {{Rfd}}/{{Rfd2}} or {{Ffd}}/{{Ffd2}} groups.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I would be hesitant to redirect those that contain old discussions, unless those discussions are properly archived somewhere. In addition, I have had to use editprotected requests in the past when no other Twinkle developers have been available to fix a bug or problem, so I have needed the script talk pages for that. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Good points, I guess let's just add a banner to remind people that any edits there need to also be made in the repo — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If an {{mfd}} is added to the top of a TimedText file, it seems to disable the file. It seems to be OK at the bottom. —teb728 t c 23:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I may be wrong about disabling. I just played a time text page with an mfd at the top, and it worked. —teb728 t c 00:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there a selectable dropdown for {{subst:ANI-notice}}? CatcherStorm talk 06:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's available through the talkback (TB) module. jcgoble3 (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)