Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Ultraviolet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eumat114 (talk | contribs) at 15:20, 12 September 2021 (→Warning message not appearing at the best location: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bug Report Feature Request

Discussion at User talk:SD0001/Making user scripts load faster

RedWarn Web - Issue
stateto do
Assignee
Last updated
09:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:SD0001/Making user scripts load faster#Conflict with scriptManager. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 18:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Well, this is not a problem with RedWarn conflicting with either scriptManager or the script caching code. Rather, some bizarre issue of something else conflicting with RedWarn that may be from the voluminous User:Qwerfjkl/common.js or some browser extension.
I couldn't reproduce the issue on my end even after copying all of User:Qwerfjkl/common.js to User:SD0001/common.js, so it's more likely a browser extension(?). – SD0001 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the stack trace, one thing that you may to take care of is this: 

DevTools failed to load source map: Could not load content for https://redwarn.toolforge.org/cdn/css/jquery.contextMenu.min.css.map: HTTP error: status code 404, net::ERR_HTTP_RESPONSE_CODE_FAILURE
DevTools failed to load source map: Could not load content for https://redwarn.toolforge.org/cdn/js/jquery.contextMenu.min.js.map: HTTP error: status code 404, net::ERR_HTTP_RESPONSE_CODE_FAILURE
DevTools failed to load source map: Could not load content for https://redwarn.toolforge.org/cdn/js/material.min.js.map: HTTP error: status code 404, net::ERR_HTTP_RESPONSE_CODE_FAILURE

which was also showing up for me. – SD0001 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001 I have now tested this on my mobile device, which has no extensions, and still has the same problem. However, I can still edit pages through links like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=$PAGENAME$&action=submit and User:BrandonXLF's section editor. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 20:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001: Control of the Toolforge instance is entirely with Ed, so I can't help with this one. Chlod (RW • say hi!) 23:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the error that is preventing me from saving edits (I think): 
  mdlLogic.js:1 Uncaught URIError: URI malformed
     at decodeURIComponent (<anonymous>)
     at Function.t.EPPyTH (mdlLogic.js:1)
     at t (mdlLogic.js:1)
     at Object.mw.loader.load (<anonymous>:2:180)
     at Object.preloadDeflate (<anonymous>:351:854)
     at <anonymous>:40:348

― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply)Template:Z181 16:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Chlod @Ed6767 ―Qwerfjkltalk 07:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I can comment on this issue without knowing the insa and outs. As an official policy I still stand by not supporting other scripts/mods, but will take a look if and when I can. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 20:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed6767 The 'edit-not-saving' issue seems to only happen in the 2017 Wiki editor. ―Qwerfjkltalk 10:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To do sometime in the future (maybe within this week). Chlod (RW • say hi!) 09:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chlod Thanks, I have disabled RedWarn in the meantime; this interferes with a large number of my user scripts. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to put this, into messages

I wanted to use FrankT•C this into messages but how do I do it. FrankT•C 17:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank6292010 are you tring to add your signature(?) if so, you just type four tildes, ~~~~ — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I wanna add my signature, I don't know how to.. FrankT•C 23:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You... use 4 tildes? Like you've done at the end of your message now? — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 08:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried but it didn't work. FrankT•C 14:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's definetely working for me... if RedWarn isn't working maybe try something like Discussion Tools in beta features? — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a beta version of Red Warn, Yes or no. FrankT•C 14:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank6292010: Yes. ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 14:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the beta version of RedWarn. FrankT•C 14:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank6292010 it's very unstable, basically unsable at this point, and requires you setting up a dev environment. I wouldn't recommend using it. If you still want to, you can see the instructions at the Gitlab repo. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add uw-draftmoved

Could you please add {{Template:Uw-draftmoved}} to the database of user warnings and notices? Thanks! Firestar464 (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firestar464:  Done! The warning is labeled "Draft has been moved to draft space", following it's WP:UWT designation. Chlod (RW • say hi!) 09:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste move

RedWarn Web - Issue
stateto do
Assignee
Last updated
10:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The "Cut and paste move" warn reason seems to be broken - it should add {{Uw-c&pmove}} to a talk page, but it attempts to add {{subst:uw-cpmove|| }} instead - which isn't a valid template. Zudo (talk • contribs) 10:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zudo: Thanks for bringing this to our attention! I've made a redirect at {{uw-cpmove}} to temporarily fix the problem. I'll be looking into this in a few hours when I'm done with some other things. Chlod (RW • say hi!) 10:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zudo: Forgot to sign (which makes the ping fail). Whoops. Chlod (RW • say hi!) 10:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I really could have made that redirect myself... Thanks for the quick reply! Zudo (talk • contribs) 10:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RedWarn Team, I have encounter this issue for the past 24 hours, in which after reverting, warning, and clicking warn user button. The modal for warn user would keep showing the loading/spinning circle instead of closing. The reverting and warning has no issues, as the article history and user talk shows it was published without any issues. I have tried reset the RedWarn using the reset button but still the same issue. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Paper9oll. Can you please test this again and see if the problem has been fixed? Chlod (RW • say hi!) 06:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chlod Nope, just tested again ... still happening. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on, I have tried on Firefox (primary browser) and also on Chrome/Edge. On Firefox, after clicking "warn user", the modal will keep showing the loading/spinning circle. On Chrome/Edge, after clicking "warn user", the modal will keep showing the loading/spinning circle also with the text "Saving message..." , the text wasn't displayed on Firefox. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paper9oll: Should be fixed now. Chlod (RW • say hi!) 07:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chlod Tested it, working now. Thanks a lot. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

feature requests

add the ability for admins to apply the protection in the Manage Page Protection dialog box instead of just requesting it. also add a button to uninstall red warn in the about section in the settings page. Fizz fam (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RedWarn RBK icons disappear when TW's RBK buttons are disabled

Hi, I realise that when I have both RedWarn and Twinkle enabled, and I disable Twinkle's three rollback buttons from its preferences, RedWarn's rollback icons also disappear, which basically disables half of its function. I imagine one gadget's settings should generally not conflict with another's. I would appreciate it if this was fixed, as I generally find RedWarn's RBK features more useful than TW's, and would like to limit my own confusion by not having three different types of buttons for rollback. If this was intentional, I apologise. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 02:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liamyangll, I just completely disable Twinkle's rollback module which allows RedWarn to work as expected (for me at least). Twinkle may be modifying the page to hide the buttons, which is something we might need to mitigate if disabling Twinkle's rollback module doesn't work for you. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 02:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I was checking the wrong options that removed the buttons but did not disable the module. Now that you mentioned an alternative option, I tried it and it seems to work. Thanks for informing me of this, and I apologise for utterly wasting your time. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 02:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it can be confusing so we're always happy to help :) ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 02:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 'RW 16.1' label signifies ... what?

What does it really mean when rollbackers label their reversions of edits at the COVID-19 lab leak theory page as "RW 16.1"?

Let's say users kept employing a rollback tool at an ECP-protected page to warn contributors about edits that they disagreed with. Couldn't this inadvertently cause some people to give up editing that page?

Disputes can leave people "disillusioned with the project" and cause them to abandon editing Wikipedia altogether ... "That does real, long-lasting damage," Li notes. "Not just to COVID-19 articles, but to the rest of the encyclopedia."

Ryan, "Wikipedia is at War over the Coronavirus Lab Leak Theory"

More specifically, this could inadvertently discourage other editors from restoring the reverted content. What good-faith editor wants to be given a scarlet RW 16.1 public warning meant to be used for apparent vandalism? –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC) 01:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dervorguilla the RW 16.1 means RedWarn version 16.1. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also the link to WP:ROLLBACKUSE doesn't make sense - that only applies to rollback's generic edit summary. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) 01:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: You're saying my link to ROLLBACKUSE doesn't make sense because that section doesn't apply when the user adds an appropriate rationale. I should have specified my point in citing that section. It expressly states: If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary, then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting.
You don't really mean to suggest that it's appropriate to label those last five reversions as minor edits, right? Or to stigmatize them by adding an RW 16.1 RedWarn label? (Most of us ordinary editors see those labels as having something to do with rolling back apparent vandalism and warning offenders.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dervorguilla, this has very little to do with us. It is standard practice for reversion tools to have their version in the edit summary for both analytics and accountability reasons. How an editor uses the tool is up to them. Twinkle, RedWarn and Huggle are reversion tools that make reverting edits on Wikipedia easier, which is why these edits were made with RedWarn. As the editors filled in a relevant edit summary, this dispute does not involve us but rather between you and the editors if you disagree with their edits. They are also shown as minor edits as it's standard practice for reversions. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 08:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dervorguilla: Hello there! Thanks for reaching out to us. As Qwerfjkl pointed out, "RW 16.1" simply means that the edit was made using RedWarn version 16.1, which is the current version of RedWarn. "RW 16.1" is not meant to be a "public warning meant to be used for apparent vandalism," it is simply to signify the fact that the edit was made using the specified version of RedWarn. The RedWarn version label on an edit summary is not meant to suggest rolling back apparent vandalism and warning offenders, as this is not the only feature of RedWarn. Re your part about minor edits, rollbacks/reverts made using RedWarn are automatically marked as minor, as they do not add anything substantial to the page's content. You will also notice that the built-in rollback tool also marks rollbacks as minor (see this revert).
TL;DR: "RW 16.1" simply means that the edit was made using RedWarn version 16.1 and nothing else. They were marked as minor edits due to the fact that all reverts made with RedWarn are automatically marked as such. ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 08:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Dervorguilla The RedWarn label just signifies the edit was made via RedWarn, (presumably) to track usage of the tool. ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportzpikachu, Qwerfjkl, and Ed6767: Savvy editors here all understand that rollbacks made using RedWarn are "automatically marked" as minor. Still, ordinary editors elsewhere typically see m as signifying that the edit in question is nondisputable. WP:MINOR emphasizes:

Checking the minor edit box signifies that the current and previous versions differ ... in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit ... and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor.

Improper to do so manually ≠ proper to do so automatically! Now that you understand the real problem here, how can we most efficiently address it? (Maybe one of us could add a concise note to this effect on the Project page?) –Dervorguilla (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dervorguilla, rollback edits are automatically marked as minor; this is not to do with RedWarn. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Berrely, Qwerfjkl, and Ed6767: Not directly, at least. I have to agree with you there.
But reversions made using your efficient "counter-vandalism" tool are also automatically furnished with a RW 16.1 template and marked with a RedWarn tag. So, some interested editors may erroneously infer that the rollbacker is (discreetly) warning them about something—most likely, a disruptive edit. Yikes! This can discourage those interested editors from restoring the reverted material until they have time to investigate what that template and tag really mean.
They may take a look at your project page's curly-quote about RedWarn being used as a counter-vandalism tool or your intro about it being a counter-vandalism tool ... used ... to revert problematic edits, warn and report editors and so forth. They would then have to proceed through some 1,200 words of text to find out that when used with a proper edit summary, your template and tag don't really signify anything of interest to them! (As Sportzpikachu helpfully puts it, "RW 16.1" simply means that the edit was made using RedWarn version 16.1 and nothing else.)
A typical editor may not have time to look this deeply. To help them out, maybe a concise statement could be added up front:
Note: If you're reverting disputed material, it's ordinarily best to rely on other tools. Adding a RedWarn tag may (inadvertently) suggest to other editors that your reversion was in some way meant as countervandalism.
Many thanks for your patience! –Dervorguilla (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dervorguilla, thanks for your suggestions - we want to make RedWarn friendly for all, however, the issue I have with what you just said is that the two other leading reversion tools on enwiki (WP:TW and WP:HG) do exactly the same thing that RedWarn does on its page with "vandalism" in its lede, so I don't see how directing people to other reversion tools would exactly change anything. I think you do raise a good point however now you have communicated it properly.
We might want to consider as all vandalism tools to introduce a "GoBack"/"Takeback"/"CarefulRevert" (no idea on a good name) feature that can be used in situations where conflict could arise, whilst I've not encountered any issues per se, it might be useful in terms of holding editors accountable and not making them look like admins to those unfamiliar with how Wikimeida projects work, where it does the same things as a typical rollback/reversion but has different wording and a focus on entering an edit summary and also makes sure (if technically possible) that the edits aren't marked as minor. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 01:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed6767: Thank you! That sounds like a really keen idea. –Dervorguilla (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dervorguilla: To clarify, in the case that we in fact do implement this feature, what is the problem with the current rollback/revert features that you feel can discourage those interested editors from restoring the reverted material? ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 04:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just commenting ... reading through the discussion and also that makeshift note above, it does seem like (if implemented) it is telling RedWarn users to not use RedWarn to rollback edit using RedWarn and to only use it strictly for vandalism related only, and they are better off using Twinkle or installing Huggle to use Huggle because that (RW 16.1), at least that is how I interpret it as. Of note, RedWarn also features quick actions button such as non-constructive edits, unexplained content removal, likely factual error, copyright, npov, and few more, which are not exactly vandalism related, would the note conflict against it. In addition, what about conflict against existing WP:RW/A? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paper9oll: You've picked up most of my points. (I don't think it's ideal to rely on RW#A, though. That would make this otherwise ultraefficient tool rather less so!) –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @Sportzpikachu: Edit summary A is fairly easy to understand; most likely it would not discourage interested editors from restoring part or all of the material:

we don't usually single out single papers if the only content we have on them is basically a summary of what's in the paper

Edit summary B is more opaque - and rather disconcerting:

we don't usually single out single papers if the only content we have on them is basically a summary of what's in the paper (RW 16.1)

A mildly interested editor may be wary about interfering in what looks like some kind of countervandalism warning process.

The RedWarn tag can likewise be a bit off-putting. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dervorguilla: Are you suggesting we remove the "RW 16.1" from each edit made with RedWarn? ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 08:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportzpikachu: Or at least make it (and the RedWarn tag) discretionary rather than automatic. (Maybe it could be set as the default option?) –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC) 08:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note: I see no reason to adjust the edit summary note (RW 16.1) nor the RW Tag. Their use has been patiently explained and is well within standard practice. I remind editors (and the developers) that the "discretionary" use of these tags or edit summaries would actually fall outside of standard practice - as an administrator, I often need to know if someone made a change manually or semi-automatically using a script such as RW. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 09:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dervorguilla, as @TheresNoTime has said, we cannot make tool tags discretionary as that'd defeat the purpose of having the tag in the first place, and would not be standard practice for any tool or bot. Simply removing the tag is not an option on the table for RedWarn, or any other tool. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 12:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed6767: That all makes sense! So the easiest fix seems like the best one. Somewhere on your Project page, you could advise RedWarn users not to use RedWarn for ordinary reverts of disputed material. (Maybe add that the (RW 16.1) summary note could confuse some interested editors about the purpose of the reversion?) –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dervorguilla, for the last time, we have no reason to do this. As noted above, every single tool for reverting edits had the word "vandalism" in the lead. RedWarn is simply a tool for reverting edits; not vandalism specifically. Whether a user wants to use RedWarn to revert an edit is completely at their discretion, not ours. We don't enforce who can use RedWarn for what unless it's obvious abuse. RedWarn is just a tool; we don't decide (mostly) what people do with it. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 06:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special:RecentChanges

HI, I think RedWarn used to activate on recent changes, but it doesn't seem to now.

Screenshot of the issue

 ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning message not appearing at the best location

RedWarn Web - Issue
Unassigned
stateto do

So I came across good ol' vandalism, and routinely went on the user talk (of the IP) to issue a warning. This is what it was before I came: [1]

I then issued the message. Contrary to expectation that it would appear at the bottom of the page, it instead placed my message in the middle (diff). While not the most fatal error, I think it might need a solution. It might have been caused by multiple headers "September 2021". Thanks a lot, and Happy 2021 Eumat114 (Message) 15:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Ultraviolet&oldid=1043897997"