Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45

Problem when warning; sometimes reveals IP address

Sometimes when I edit on Twinkle and warn someone, I get a signature of my username plus my IP address saying hello to the user that I was warning. Could you change the software a bit so that the IP address never gets featured in warnings, or at least give a warning to the user of Twinkle about the logging off warning? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

First off, Twinkle is not really at fault here, rather your session timed out or it's some other MediaWiki bug. The good news is the issue is easily reproducible, but I don't see an immediate solution. The pre-supplied JS variables provided by MediaWiki still suggest your are logged in when you go to edit and are in fact logged out. We need to somehow refresh this data. This, that and the other, any insight on this? I tried messing around with the mw.user functions and what not, and I think even trying to do hacky things like getting the current user's rights won't work (which will hit the server, as opposed to mw.user.isAnon() which is pre-supplied). I'd consider this issue to be high-priority as there are privacy concerns — MusikAnimal talk 07:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah I remember now, there's mw:API:Assert. So we should just be able to pass assert=user in with API call? Maybe this will be an easy fix — MusikAnimal talk 07:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000: Should be fixed now, thanks for the report! — MusikAnimal talk 15:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Default Twinkle window size?

Is there a way for me to change my default Twinkle window and text box sizes? Across the board I find these too small, since I tend to add a lot of banter to user warnings and SPI reports and such. The only size option I see is for speedy deletion windows. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

What is Twinkle?

Why an editor can revert my edits and say (Wikipedia:TW) ? It does not make sense. It is an error or something ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexiulian25: Users of Twinkle may choose to automatically add text such as "Twinkle", "TW", or "Using Twinkle" to the edit summary where they use Twinkle to revert an edit. This option is set in the General section of the Twinkle preference page. It just shows that the Twinkle tool was used, and advertises the existence of Twinkle to other users. Editors doing reverting, whether using Twinkle or not, are expected to also give a brief explanation in the edit summary, unless they consider that what they are reverting was plain vandalism. If they forget to do this, it is better to try to resolve the matter on their talk page rather than embark on an "edit war": Noyster (talk), 17:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
But why if the editor keeps saying (TW) - the main reason to revert my edits. Check this [1] - no reasons - just (TW). Who is right with this edits ? Let me understand ! Thanks !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
"(TW)" is not a reason and doesn't claim to be a reason. It's merely information that the tool Twinkle was used in the edit. The reason in the edit you mention is "Same as yesterday" (referring to the page history). That is not a discussion for Twinkle's talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
@Alexiulian25: If you would like to discuss the reversions, please leave a message at User talk:Qed237. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I just want to understand what reason is (TW) to revert someone edits !? Another example : [2] And if is no reason, what I should do now.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Alexiulian25: Did you even read PrimeHunter's explanation above ? Mlpearc (open channel) 00:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
SO, if is not a reason, why people use it many many times? This are just 2 example, but I can show you more examples.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I see the answer is no. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello @Alexiulian25:. You seem to have a point, and it is something you need to discuss directly with the other editor. In the first example you gave, the edit summary says: "Reverted 1 edit by Alexiulian25 (talk): Same as yesterday. (TW)". However, looking at the article's history shows that when he/she made the reversion on the previous day, he/she did not provide an explanation of why. Similarly, the second example did not give an explanation of why the editor was reverting the change. I can see why that is frustrating, not knowing why your changes were reverted. So, the question is what to do about this? The only person who can help you to understand why Qed237 made those changes is Qed237. So as This, that and the other suggested, your next step is to start a discussion at User talk:Qed237, quote the two examples above, and ask why those changes were reverted. That is the place where you can get a better understanding, rather than this page: this is for discussing how to improve the Twinkle tool itself. Talk to Qed237.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much! You are a nice man!If I have any other troubles, I will come to you!--Alexiulian25 (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/697322880

Twinkle changes | into {{subst:!}}. This doesn't work correctly if <nowiki> is used in the nomination rationale. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a case of "lesser of two evils", I think. I guess we could write a regex to filter out pipes inside nowiki tags. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Under [3], which requests that 2016 be semi-protected, it says {{Year article header{{subst:!}}2016}}, which also says {{subst:!}}. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The missing "renew ______ protection"

In the RFPP program part of Twinkle, I cannot press any option for "renew pending changes", or renewal of any other form of protection. Can you please add this in, as some users may want to renew an article's pending changes, etc.? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Requesting renewed pending changes to X (TW)" Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Underlinked

{{Underlinked}} has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 24#Template:Underlinked. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been kept. Thank goodness it is. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Change the XFD hovertext

Currently it says "Nominate for deletion" when hovering over the XFD button in the dropdown on the upper right but that button isn't just for deletion-nominations hence it's misleading and simply false. Actually I was once told that one was able to create "articles for discussion" entries with Twinkle but I never found out how until now because of that hovertext. It's just a small change so it would be nice if it could be changed to something more appropriate (e.g. "Nominate for deletion/discussion"). --Fixuture (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite the names like "Templates for discussion", the collective term for the XFD venues is "deletion discussion venues". I have never come across the terminology "nominate an article for discussion". We could just change the tooltip to "Nominate for deletion, merging, etc." perhaps. — This, that and the other (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

SPI report edit summary

  • 22:38, 3 January 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+939)‎ . . Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SEFPRODUCTIONS ‎ (Adding new report for SEFPRODUCTIONS. (TW)) (current)
Wouldn't it be more useful to name the puppet in the edit summary? The master's name already appears in the name of the SPI page. Bazj (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

CfD for Category:AfD debates (Web or internet)

Category:AfD debates (Web or internet), which has been nominated for renaming to Category:AfD debates (Web or Internet) at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 6#Category:AfD debates (Web or internet), affects Twinkle's XfD module. If the consensus was to rename the category, then the drop-down menu item should say "Web or Internet" instead of "Web or internet". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, we should paint the bike shed yellow. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Option to turn off "Rollback", etc. when viewing Special:Contributions pages?

On balance, I mostly like Twinkle (esp. the added Twinkle "menu" in the upper-right). But one thing I definitely don't like is the display of the "[rollback] [vandalism]" options when looking at Special:Contributions/[user] pages, and I'd like to turn that part off. So, is there a way to do that? I'm assuming it's done via Special:MyPage/twinkleoptions.js page, but I don't know the "code" to add to achieve turning the above options off on Special:Contributions/[user] pages. Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide on this! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: I think the best way to edit your Twinkle preferences is via Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences, where the options are all explained. The one you want is labelled "Show rollback links on these pages"; then there's a "Save changes" button at the very bottom. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Erg... That's called irony. Actually, I had looked there before, but I had missed the "Show rollback links on these pages: Contributions pages of other users" option... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Uw-plagiarism

Template:Uw-plagiarism, when used with Twinkle, adds the user's appended text twice. It would also be better to have a more generic version of this template that referred to "free use text" instead of public domain specifically because sometimes the violation is copied cc-by text, etc. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 03:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the duplication issue: the template contained two instances of the code to output that text, so I removed one of them. jcgoble3 (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate AFDs

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Remmy Njoku and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Remmy Njoku (2nd nomination) — operated by Wikicology, Twinkle created both nominations together, one minute apart, complete with the same text. Could this be done by accident, or is it unambiguously a bug? Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear from Wikicology to know what went on here. On the face of it, I don't see how Twinkle could have done this, but I am open to being corrected. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@This, that and the other and Nyttend: please accept my apology for this extremely slow response. It wasn't really a bug. I will attribute the error to a bad network connection in my location. It was a double nomination in error. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
No need for an apology just because of a network error; it wasn't vandalism or something else that made a mess. I've never used Twinkle, so I didn't know if it were a Twinkle thing or something unrelated. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

db-person & selfies

Would it be possible, when tagging an autobiographical article with db-person, to optionally open a tab in the browser for each commons image that appears on the page? Perhaps with the nomination for deletion already fired up and populated with "self promotion" or "out of scope" pre-populated? Bazj (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

As a Commons admin, I'm quite leery of such a thing; granted, most such images aren't in scope (and of course self-promotional stuff generally isn't in scope), but I can see such a tool being used to tag images excessively. Of course I understand that this wouldn't be tagging images without human confirmation, but making it so easy to create DRs would make it much easier not to think about an image's potential uses. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

File patrol

It will soon be possible to patrol files, see gerrit:251795. It would be nice to integrate the feature in Twinkle, by patrolling file pages when tagging them. Cenarium (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It is now live. Cenarium (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Update to CSD module

I've deployed an update to the CSD module that should primarily only affect admins, but if anyone notices anything funky when requesting speedy deletion please let me know. The other big change is that user talk pages now open in a new tab rather than a new window. You can change this in your preferences, but I imagine the tabs will be preferred by most. Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 17:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle protection module: bug report

See the history of Johnny Galecki. Seeing the page unprotected, I opened the Twinkle protection dialog and chose a one week protection. However, while I was choosing the settings, KrakatoaKatie protected it for a month. When I confirmed my settings, they overrode Katie's, shortening the protection.

Would it be possible for Twinkle to give a warning or to quit if there is a "protection conflict"? This is the second time this has happened to me this week. If I hadn't noticed what had happened and fixed it, it could have been interpreted as wheel warring.

Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I tried out a conflict scenario on testwiki and did not get an error, which you do when blocking. Not sure exactly how it works on the MediaWiki side, but we should be able to implement our own conflict detection fairly easily. Once the protection module is opened, Twinkle already checks if the article is currently protected. So then when you click submit, it should check again, and if it is then protected when it wasn't beforehand than that indicates there was a conflict. I'll put it on my to-dos! :) — MusikAnimal talk 18:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. BethNaught (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Color warning templates

I wanted to warn an IP about reverting color-compliant colors. However, the templates for {{subst=uw-color1}} to color4 aren't in the list when warning a user using Twinkle. Can someone add those please? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You can add the templates you want to use through the pref's panel. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I had no idea. How do you do that? I figured it out. Thanks! Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Callmemirela: You're welcome Mlpearc (open channel) 04:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Erm. I've picked a few fights myself over WP:COLOR issues, but using an automated tool to deliver a four-step warning sequence about it is a bad idea. This should be a single-issue notice at most. Someone might get blocked for edit-warring over colors, or for disruptively editing them, or for deliberately choosing unreadable colors for trolling/vandalism purposes, but nobody is going to get blocked for bad taste alone and we shouldn't be giving {{uw-color4}} warnings as if we might. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
COLOR is part of WP:MOS, so technically I don't think see why someone shouldn't be blocked for continually ignoring COLOR, or how this class of warning messages is different from escalating uw-mos's.—Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
*boggle* If I had realized those existed, I would've said they should be condensed to a single-issue notice too. Am I getting blocked for letting gnomes fix my dashes now? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
IIRC, the few times I've blocked users over MOS were users who were on a binge to mass enforce a convention contrary to the MOS, e.g. WP:OVERLINKing, WP:SEAOFBLUE, while never responding to their talk page to anything, not just warning templates. That being said, I would think a COLOR block would only apply to someone consistently mass editing colors using inaccessible combos, while refusing to discuss it.—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but those are blocks for disruptive editing and non-communication that happened to be about MOS issues, right? The same behavior would be a problem if it had been a binge of adding fancruft or moving pages or whatever. My concern about this kind of micro-issue warning is that it tells people "we have a rule about colors", not "we have a rule about collaboration". Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Bug: unprotect request

 Fixed
 – Should be all set. Please report any related issues.

Used the RPP -> Unprotection and the request went into the wrong section of WP:RFPP [4] ; specifically went into Current requests for edits to a protected page instead of Current requests for reduction in protection level NE Ent 16:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Add requesting protection is going into the wrong spot [5] NE Ent 02:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh boy. Time to figure this out once and for all. I can take a stab at it today/tomorrow, pinging This, that and the other so he knows — MusikAnimal talk 02:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
TTO, this doesn't look like an issue with the regex, but the computeWeight function (you probably already knew that). That being said, I'm not a great candidate to fix this... I like this implementation of intelligently determining if they want increase/reduction of protection, but the timing could be off and it gets put in the wrong place. I believe this is what happened with NE Ent's second example. Maybe we could add increase/reduce radio buttons in the interface itself? Even if there is no timing conflict, some users don't realize the page is already protected. The radio buttons would at least ensure the request goes in the intended section. Another thought is we could still still utilize the computeWeight function and alert the user if what they are requesting conflicts with the increase/reduce radio button they've selected — MusikAnimal talk 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The issue with unprotection requests ending up in the wrong section of the page is a regex problem. The regex needs some serious massaging. As for the second example, I can't really tell what went wrong there. What do you mean by "the timing could be off and it gets put in the wrong place"? — This, that and the other (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I might be wrong about the computeWeight function, having trouble reproducing the bug and I think I confused my self =P There is an edge case timing issue, however: Doug Pederson was protected at 2:06 GMT, and page protection was requested at 2:07. The request got put in the wrong section because presumably the protection weight ended up being the same by the time NE Ent hit submit. This is a similar issue to the above bug report, with a similar solution, so I'll work on that. If the primary issue when requesting protection is indeed due to the regex, I think I have a solid solution for that as well... I'll get back to you! — MusikAnimal talk 05:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
With regard to the regex issue: [6] That regex worked correctly in Notepad++ at the time I submitted the pull request. :) If there are other issues with the regex, those shouldn't hold up a simple bugfix, assuming this is confirmed to fix the bug. jcgoble3 (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, there is a previous report above: #TWINKLE posted unprotection request in wrong section on RFPP, as well as several discussions in the archives of this page. jcgoble3 (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
See [7]. Since we're now adding requests at the end of the sections, I just changed it to look for the heading of the subsequent section. Tested it out on testwiki and all seemed fine. Thank you everyone for the help! — MusikAnimal talk 00:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

New G6 criterion

Please add {{db-blankdraft}} to Twinkle's deletion reasons. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done — MusikAnimal talk 02:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

TWINKLE posted unprotection request in wrong section on RFPP

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)
 Fixed — MusikAnimal talk 02:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

CSD P1

The Criterion dropdown list for CSD P1 does not work lists no options. —teb728 t c 10:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I mean the "Article criterion that would apply" dropdown. It still lists no article criteria. —teb728 t c 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
@Teb728: Well spotted! This bug has been present in Twinkle since October 2013, and no-one has noticed it in all that time. I'll get it fixed soon. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess that shows how many people want to speedy portal pages. —teb728 t c 06:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Can you sync this please? — This, that and the other (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@This, that and the other: What am I syncing? The speedy module is up-to-date — MusikAnimal talk 01:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Sorry, I forgot to push the commit! I have done so now. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem, all set — MusikAnimal talk 03:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Unlinking when unlinking is counterproductive

I'm not quite sure where to put this. I'd like to raise an issue that occurs when an article is deleted and someone uses the "unlink" Twinkle feature to remove the wikilinks to the deleted page without removing the text of the former link. In most cases, it's entirely appropriate. However, when the link is part of a list with inclusion criteria dependent upon notability and/or the existence of an article, the link should not be unlinked -- it should be removed. Just unlinking makes it more difficult to detect instances of that deleted subject on Wikipedia because there's no longer a "what links here" record. Often times, a promotional article is deleted after it was added to multiple lists. I may watch one of those lists, notice the redlink, and by checking "what links here" I can find the other pages it was added to. I may also be watching a page that gets deleted (or its AfD). When that happens, I go to "what links here" in order to find pages it needs to be removed from. If someone has already simply unlinked it, I can't do so. Instead, I have to try my luck with a search in the hope that the unlinked text is the same as the article name (a less effective and more cumbersome approach).

To summarize, when someone unlinks a page indiscriminately, it can make it more difficult to actually follow through on the spirit of the guideline that calls for their unlinking in the first place. Perhaps even more importantly, it doesn't actually improve anything on the page where the list item should just be removed.

I have tried bringing it up with users directly. Boleyn, for example, is the one I see doing this most often. After a couple threads on the topic, he/she suggested I bring it up here. So I am (albeit several months after initially suggested).

Maybe the best way would be to require confirmation for (or just omit) links that are inside a table or in a bulleted item? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Bug: prodding an article redirected from under me

I just prodded Banglapost at the same time that another editor moved it to Bangla Post - Twinkle correctly detected the redirect and put the {{prod}} template on the "Bangla Post" article, but it gave the warning to the editor who'd moved the article, rather than the one who'd created it in the first place. (When an article is moved, it looks as if the redirect shows as having been created by the editor who moved it, in its page history.) --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem with Twinkle

Hello. I have a problem with Twinkle. I can't use it one any Wiki's. I want to remove vandalism cross-wiki, but when I click on any Twinkle rollback link, the page goes blank and nothing happens... I don't know what's wrong. When I use the gadget on en.wiki it works fine, but I can't use it global. Can someone please check my global.js https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Simeon_Dahl/global.js to see if I did something wrong? --Simeondahl (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Gadget-Twinkle.js isn't the only file for Twinkle. You need all of the files and dependencies listed under Twinkle at MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition (in the bottom half of the first section). The files may be easier to pull from Special:Gadgets, but I can't help you with the proper way of declaring dependencies. Someone else can, though. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I've tried that now but it did not seem to work. I just asked someone on English Wikipedia IRC chat if someone else has the same problem, and as it seems right now a bunch of users have the same problem as I experience. --Simeondahl (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There is some brief discussion regarding using Twinkle on other wikis on the main Twinkle page: Wikipedia:Twinkle#Use_on_other_wikis. I don't know how helpful that will be. jcgoble3 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Default TB noticeboard

Is there a way to set a preference for your preferred noticeboard when using talkback? Tiggerjay (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Bug: Two AfD relistings in the same day

Greetings. I have noticed an undesirable behavior when a Twinkle user attempts to relist an AfD discussion after it has already been relisted on that day, usually due to an edit conflict. Twinkle normally quite handily comments out the active listing from the previous daily log page and relists it on the current day's log page, but when the active listing is already on the current day's page, it comments it out there and does nothing else, thereby making it disappear. I usually find them only via Wikipedia:Article alerts/Problem entries/Old, where a bot collects listings that are over a month old. --Finngall talk 21:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Now also reported on GitHub. --Finngall talk 16:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Using it at other Wikipedia

Hi. I'd love if Twinkle could be used on eswiki. Would that be possible? If so, what do we have to do to make that happen? Best regards, MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTAWEBHOST has a confusing description

The WP:NOTAWEBHOST in Twinkle appears to say resumes are okay, but the policy page says they are not. Am I misreading the description? In veritas (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@In veritas: If you mean the pop-up in the CSD interface, yes it allows resume-like material (by my reading). WP:U5 does not specifically disallow resumes but intones such material isn't allowed unless it conforms with WP:UPYES, which itself allows a "small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material". It's very subjective. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Thank you for the policy clarification. In veritas (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle incompatible with Easyblock - Twinkle doesn't appear on redlinked user talk pages

FYI for administrators who use the Easyblock script (User:Animum/easyblock.js): I noticed some weeks ago that Twinkle would not load on user talk pages that do not yet exist, so I was unable to welcome or warn those users. Just guessing, I thought that since Twinkle now has blocking capability, there might be some incompatibility with easyblock.js. After disabling easyblock.js in my personal script page, Twinkle once again appears on redlinked user talk pages. Since it doesn't appear that easyblock.js is being actively maintained, I'll just use Twinkle for situations when I need that capability. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

{{Rename media}} tagging

Is it possible to change the gadget so that it presents a dropdown of the 9 file rename criteria and the input boxes (proposed name, additional rename reason) in one window, like {{Not English}} tagging does? Right now, it requires to fill out three separate windows with one inputbox each.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

{{Welcome to Wikipedia}}

Why isn't {{Welcome to Wikipedia}} available for use in the Welcome (Wel) tab? Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That would be because its excessive and overwhelming size means very few editors will want to use it to welcome new users. If you for some reason feel a great desire to use that template, you can add it for your own use in Twinkle using the "custom welcome templates" functionality at WP:TWPREFS. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The {{uw-consensus1}} series of template warnings missing?

Am I missing something, or is the {{uw-consensus1}} series of warning templates missing from the Twinkle "warn" options? Am I not just seeing them somewhere? Or have they been omitted for a reason? Or is this just an oversight?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Going to guess this wasn't an intentional omission. Seems reasonable to include these, though. Anyone else have input? — MusikAnimal talk 22:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
We have only been including common warning series, to avoid cluttering the dropdowns with uncommon ones. If you think this is common enough, then go for it. — This, that and the other (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd say it's semi-common – I've had to use it a fair amount at List of metro systems, among other articles. (P.S. If it doesn't get added, it's not a big deal – I've been adding these manually forever anyway. I just wanted to make sure that they were indeed missing, and that there was a reason for that...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Undefined" in CSD custom rationale edit summary

 Fixed
 – Thanks for the report! — MusikAnimal talk 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See [8] (screenshot for after it gets deleted). The custom rationale was correctly inserted into the template, but not the edit summary, which just says "undefined". (Tagging Loriendrew, in case he has any further information like an error message.) jcgoble3 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm so embarrassed! Anyway, there was no error notification. It seemed to process correctly on my end.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, it looks like everything listed here under this month from #78 to #103 has the same issue. Hopefully that means that it's easy to reproduce. (And Loriendrew, don't feel bad; your erroneous notification to the archive bot was the reason I found this error, so without that, this probably wouldn't have been noticed and reported and thus wouldn't get fixed. Sometimes it takes a user mistake to notice a software bug.) jcgoble3 (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Is some specific combination of this user's preferences causing some problem here? — This, that and the other (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Interesting... I don't see why it would be the summaryAd user preference, if that's what you mean. I am able to reproduce and will look into it tonight. Are we sure it's not a change to {{db}} that's the culprit? — MusikAnimal talk 16:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Expert-subject

The template survived a TfD a while ago with the strong recommendation that its usage included either |talk= or |reason=. This seems entirely reasonable. What's the point asking for help then being coy about why help is needed? Twinkle's use of the template uses neither parameter. This needs resolving. Regards, Bazj (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add the "G8: Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" CSD option to be selectable for redirects

Resolved

I think I remember this option was previously selectable for redirects, but it is not anymore. Anyways, I would like this option to be selectable and added for the CSD tag list on redirects. This tag applies to talk page redirects that have no parent page ({{Db-talk}}), but since it is not selectable, the only option currently to make Twinkle "work" is to subdue the redirect then use Twinkle ... which is currently misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You should see G8: Redirects to invalid targets, such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles at the bottom of the list on redirect pages. Is there a page in particular where this is missing? — MusikAnimal talk 22:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: I think the point is that some redirects are eligible for db-talk but not db-redirect. Looking at the Twinkle CSD list for redirects, I think all general criteria should be made available for redirects. After all, they are general and may apply to any page. Removing G1, for example, was not a good idea. — This, that and the other (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: That explanation doesn't apply to redirects from talk pages with existing targets (but no parent page.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You should still see G8: Subpages with no parent page, no? The point in trimming down the list was obviously to make it easier to use, but you're probably right about G1 among others. And on second thought, the MediaWiki software might report a page as a redirect since the redirect markup is there, yet more extraneous markup might be present that constitutes a copyright violation, etc — MusikAnimal talk 22:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is the newly modified list of G-criteria [9]. Anything you see with hideWhenRedirect: true is what would be hidden on redirect pages. Please advise — MusikAnimal talk 22:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: That one is there, but that doesn't apply to most talk pages since the majority of them are not subpages. Let's say, for example, Talk:Example of something existed as a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Twinkle (an existent page) when Example of something doesn't exist. Talk:Example of something doesn't qualify for {{Db-redirect}} since it has a valid target and doesn't qualify for {{Db-subpage}} since it is not a subpage. Only {{Db-talk}} would apply. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Got it. So we can restore {{db-talk}}, but Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page (generic g8) is not needed, since we have all grounds covered with more specific criteria. However due to the implementation, we must include it or else it won't be available when you check "delete under multiple criteria"! Plan to trim the list has failed :( — MusikAnimal talk 23:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@This, that and the other and Steel1943: Give me the OK on this pull request and I shall merge and sync [10]. Many thanks — MusikAnimal talk 00:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Looks good to me. Although a redirect could be a blatant hoax, it is likely that another criterion will apply (specifically R3) in that situation. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
All set. Apologies for the inconvenience! — MusikAnimal talk 15:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Remove border

I have added a "1" parameter to Template:Remove border which adds an "Additional comment:" and text to the bottom of the template if parameter 1 is used. Could the functionality of this parameter in this template please be added to Twinkle? Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding new template to twinkle

 Done

Hello to all! How does one go about getting a template added to the Wikiproject list on Twinkle? I'd like to add a "Wikiproject Anatomy" (WP:ANAT) template, {{WPANATOMY-welcome}} if possible. I've also posted at the Welcoming committee talk page as I'm a little unclear as to the appropriate venue for this request. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Just ask here. I'll add it. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I is confused. What WikiProject list in Twinkle? I was not aware of such a feature. jcgoble3 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Never mind. I found it. (I interpreted it as a tagging functionality for article talk pages, not as a part of the welcome module. In fact, I wasn't even aware of the drop-down list in the welcome module, which shows how often I use it. ) jcgoble3 (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks This, that and the other. Could you add it to Twinkle? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I've added it, I'll just tap MusikAnimal on the shoulder to get it synchronised. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@This, that and the other: Forget to push again? :) — MusikAnimal talk 18:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: I'm pretty sure I had pushed ebbc07d3bd9b00a676fe5eca38456ea8c939b807 at the time of your message...? In any case, it's there now. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so you added it 4 days ago! All synced :) — MusikAnimal talk 19:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you to all! --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Bug: XfD does not notify correctly when invoked from the talk page of a template.

When using XfD from a talk page twinkle it nominated the template page, but notified the wrong editor as the original contributor and put the notices in the wrong place. If it running from the talk page intends to just nominate the talk page it should refer to just that page possibly with an warning that it is operating on the talk page, otherwise if should consider the associated page for notifications etc. Right now it appears to start a discussion about the associated template page, but put the inline template notice on the talk page and notify the talk page creator. PaleAqua (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Tagging with multiple criteria

How do I tag a redirect for deletion per R3 and U2? It seems that the U criteria have disappeared from Twinkle. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

TEST* Templates

Heads up! A bunch of these are getting redirected, etc; Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 26#Old Test Edit Warnings — xaosflux Talk 04:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle doesn't use those templates. Thanks anyway :) — This, that and the other (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:db-discog

Hi, I'm not sure if this is a breaking change to Twinkle, but as part of closing Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Discographies of deleted artists as a clear consensus, I've created Template:db-discog as a redirect to Template:db-a9. Does the change need to be reflected anywhere else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Db-redircom

Can this template please be added to Twinkle as a "CSD" option? This template is a variation of WP:G6 that only applies to redirects in the "File:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification about Proposed deletion

I am here to notify Twinkle users about the Proposed deletion I will be, adding this article: Ray Narvaez, Jr. Thank you Kyle1278 04:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Was there a problem using Twinkle to place the Prod?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about making Template:mfd subst'ed

Please note that at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Daily subpages and substitution, there is discussion of making {{mfd}} a sbust'ed template in stead of a transcluded one. While it looks likely to fail. this could change before the discussion is officially closed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for Additional Warnings

I would like to request that two additional warnings be added to the list of Twinkle-delivered warnings. The first would be a warning for removing MFD tags. There are warnings for removing AFD tags, and for improperly removing CSD tags. More than once, I have seen an MFD tag removed from a draft disruptively. The second should be a warning for removing AFC comments from draft pages. Although the text of the AFC messages says not to remove them, it is not uncommon for editors to remove them; I am not sure whether it is done cluelessly or whether they do know better. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Help! Twinkle not functioning after activation in the Spanish WP

Would someone know why Twinkle ceased to work when I activated it in my Spanish WP account? I tried everything in my limited knowledge of scripts and, and even turned it off and back on, but could not find the solution. Thanks in advance. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 15:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, for some reason, is working now, but the heading appears double. Look here, for example. Any ideas? --Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 15:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Wondering if this is the right forum to discuss problems of this type. Twinkle has suddenly ceased to work for me again, with no action from my part. Please, advise. Cheers, Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 17:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
What you do on your Spanish Wikipedia account has no bearing on what happens with your English Wikipedia account. Are you saying the Twinkle is working intermittently on Spanish Wikipedia, or on English Wikipedia, or both? — This, that and the other (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Twinkle does not work very well on eswp, at least not via Special:Preferences since the files that we use (subpages of es:Usuario:TwinkleUser are terribly outdated). I tried to get help in Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_38#Using_it_at_other_Wikipedia but nobody replied. MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
(WP:INTERSPERSE) @MarcoAurelio: I did see your message, as indeed I do see most posts on this page; however I don't have time to reply to them all. In the case of localisation, getting Twinkle working and up-to-date on other wikis is not easy at all. I'd be happy to discuss it on IRC, but I think everyone involved would find it too tiresome to discuss in the slow-moving fashion of a wiki talk page discussion. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: Thanks. I have stopped using it in the Spanish WP, at least, until we learn more about it. But in the En, it is still acting funny. Most of the time is giving me the options double. Like this:
(WP:THREAD)Twinkle showing double (Screenshot 2016-02-19)
And one of them actually does not work. Then, sometimes there is nothing to work with at all. To revert vandals I have to use the standard "undo" feature. I can live with that, but it is annoying. Thanks again. Cheers, Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 22:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I notice you have it installed through your global.js. Do you also have it selected as a gadget here on enwiki? If so, that's why you're getting the duplicate options and why it's not working right in general. You'll need to remove one or the other, meaning either deselect the gadget, or remove it from your global.js. The best solution, though more advanced, would be to wrap your global.js in an if block that prevents the code there from loading on enwiki, but allows it to load everywhere else. Unfortunately, I don't know which MediaWiki configuration variable you'd need to test against, or what value that variable would produce for enwiki. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, after looking at your global.js again, you already have that check for Wikidata! So just figure out what value enwiki produces and add it to the conditions (assuming the duplication is indeed caused by having the gadget). jcgoble3 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jcgoble3: Thanks! This is very useful, indeed. It helps me see how Winkle works across the various language platforms and wikiprojects. Do I read you well? Do you suggest I tell the global set up to ignore the EN Wiki Twinkle? Wouldn't just de-programing the English WP Twinkle on my side do? I can live with having the double lines above. The problem is that sometimes Twinkle is simply not showing up, and then I have to do things manually, which, of course, it is a bit more time consuming. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 09:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Caballero1967: You could just turn off the gadget here on enwiki, but that would leave you using a fork of Twinkle "designed to work on on as many wikis as possible" on enwiki. That would work most likely, but you'll have a better experience on enwiki if you instead set up global.js to ignore enwiki and keep using the gadget here, as (I assume) the fork would necessarily disable some things specific to enwiki, which only using the gadget would give you access to. Comprende? jcgoble3 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jcgoble3: Thanks again. But it is getting increasingly annoying when Twinkle does not work well. What are the risk of deleting the global.js? But I also need it in the Spanish WP. It seems you are saying that if I "wrap" my global.js in an if the enwiki may still malfunction. If so, I would prefer to have it working only in enwiki and eswiki through the Preference settings. Would this be a doable and better option? Cheers, Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 15:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Caballero1967: No, what I'm saying is that the version of Twinkle you have installed through global.js is not optimized for enwiki, whereas the gadget here is. All you would need to do is replace your global.js with this: 

// Doesn't work in Wikidata, and allow enwiki gadget to take precedence
if ( (mw.config.get("wgDBname") !== "wikidatawiki") && (mw.config.get("wgDBname") !== "testwikidatawiki") && (mw.config.get("wgDBname") !== "enwiki") ) {
    // Morebits, a library for Twinkle-like gadgets by AzaToth
    mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AzaToth/morebits.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
    // Fork of Twinkle intended to work on as many wikis as possible
    mw.loader.load('//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PiRSquared17/twinkle.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
}

That should prevent that version from loading here on enwiki, allowing the enwiki gadget to work just fine. As for working in eswiki through Preferences, that would require eswiki to have it set up as a gadget, which I don't know if they do. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jcgoble3: Thanks so much. I made the change you suggested above and it works like a charm! Where can I download your coding knowledge and how could I upload it in my brain? --Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 19:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I wish it worked that way. I have a lot of things to learn myself. jcgoble3 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Spam-warn-userpage

I changed Template:Spam-warn-userpage so that it would be closer to the other speedy deletion nomination notices. Qpalzmmzlapq | talk | contribs 22:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Loading XFD discussion page

Add option to not load XFD discussion page after nominating articles (pages). Make it optional. --XXN, 17:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle doesnt support edit conflicts

I think edit conflicts are overridden to your version of the edit upon warning the user at the same time as others see this diff. Thanks Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zppix: With the appropriate timestamp format selected in preferences, one can see that both edits carry the exact same timestamp right down to the second. Thus, I suspect a race condition, whereby the first edit was recorded between the time the MediaWiki software checked for an edit conflict on your part and the time it recorded your edit. Unfortunately, there's nothing that can be done about such an error. jcgoble3 (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

{{New unreviewed article}}

Template:New unreviewed article has been nominated for WP:Templates for discussion on March 10 by someone. As this template is a TWINKLE template, I thought I'd let you know. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI

When editors use Twinkle to open an SPI, Twinkle creates two blank lines at the top. If you open an SPI the old-fashioned way, there are no blank lines. Can Twinkle be changed to eliminate the two lines? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle to revert Twinkle?

Hello. I have never used Twinkle before, and I have a question about its functionalities. A few weeks ago, an editor removed about 500 incoming links to Maverick Records via Twinkle, noting in the edit summary that he had redirected it to another article. However, the redirected link is still useful to the reader, and I asked the editor if he could undo the Twinkle edits. He said that this was not possible, and that I would have to undo them by hand. This is incredibly laborious, and I wanted to know if there is another way I can mass-undo a large set of Twinkle edits, so that I don't have to spend hours undoing these all one by one. It seems really unfair that Twinkle can do a huge amount of unconstructive work in one minute that takes so long to fix. Chubbles (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Again with the unlink function. I don't understand why this is still a part of Twinkle. It's ridiculously easy to abuse, or for a newbie to accidentally misuse without understanding its power. And once the damage is done, you can end up practically needing a bot to undo the damage. I cannot think of any other function that has so much potential for widespread damage and is so difficult to reverse that is granted to regular non-admin users. Even for users with advanced permissions, the only things I can think of are admins performing history merges (very difficult to reverse) and the old oversight function (now obsoleted by RevisionDelete suppression), and even those can only damage one or two pages at a time, not the hundreds of pages that Twinkle's unlink can.
I therefore propose that the unlink function really should be restricted to administrators only at the very least because of this potential. jcgoble3 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to do that, for reasons that I suppose I have explained before. If someone does misuse the unlink tool, it is very quickly fixed by someone with rollback rights (a rollbacker or administrator). Indeed, you could even use Twinkle's rollback function from the user's contributions page. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
@This, that and the other: I've also felt the unlink tool is too powerful to be put in the hands of any confirmed user. I've had to do a cleanup before, and it's not necessarily easy to fix, even with rollback. I eventually had to install a mass rollback script, and even then some pages had intermediate edits, so I had to carefully go through and check those. It took a solid 15-20 minutes of my time, when the user (who I won't mention) had simply made a mistake. If it had been intentional abuse the user could have unlinked a number of other pages before being blocked, racking up a massive cleanup effort. Perhaps we should implement a warning, or additional confirmation? All in all I'm in favour of restricting usage to admins. The power of the unlink tool is most useful when deleting pages, so it makes sense to me to be an admin-only tool. — MusikAnimal talk 00:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that there are a number of non-admins who do use it for various legitimate purposes, including unlinking non-free images. I think Stefan2 is one of those. I'm not sure how we could find out if other non-admins use it, short of actually putting a message in the tool's UI inviting them to comment here. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Any user could install Pywikipedia and create a mass-vandalism bot. Sure, it's more difficult to do this than to use Twinkle, but the option is still available for any user.
It can take some time to clean up after mass editing scripts. I remember that I once made a mistake with Cat-a-lot on Commons and had to spend some time clicking on rollback links to fix my mistake. To avoid mistakes, Twinkle could maybe ask for confirmation if you wish to unlink a large number of links. However, it won't help if users do not realise that they did something bad until after the edits have been made.
I think that Unlink is a useful tool for quickly removing images which fail one or more of the non-free content criteria on a page and would prefer to have the option to continue using the tool for this purpose. If it would be beneficial to disable Unlink for some users, then maybe something like Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage could be created, or the tool could be hidden (display: none;) unless a line is added to Special:MyPage/common.css. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2: With regard to the Pywikibot comparison, that's not even remotely on the same planet:
  • Mass vandalism with Pywikibot would require the vandal to know how to program in Python, how to write a script that does the vandalism, how to run that script from the command line, and how to make the vandalism subtle enough that ClueBot NG won't instantly revert the first five edits and report it to AIV for blocking within a few minutes, by which time probably only a few hundred articles, if that, have been touched.
  • Mass vandalism with Twinkle's unlink tool requires only an autoconfirmed account and the ability to click a mouse button. That's it. Not to mention that ClueBot NG won't catch it, meaning thousands of pages could be touched before the vandal is blocked (or the clueless newbie finds out that they screwed up and hides in shame).
Building off of those points, to mass-vandalize with Pywikibot (or any other bot framework) would require the user to be absolutely dedicated to the vandalism, in which case they're going to find a way no matter what and all we can do is stop them when it happens. Mass vandalism with unlink can happen, and actually has happened, purely by accident (i.e. "hey, what does this button do?" *click* "oops..."). So no, there's no point in even attempting to compare Pywikibot to Twinkle here. (Sorry for the long post; I didn't intend on it being this long when I started it.) jcgoble3 (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, agreed with Jcgoble3. There are actually easier ways to cause damage on a massive scale, but not the point... In reality we probably don't have much abuse of the Unlink tool, or at least I'm not aware of any such cases. However as evidenced, mistakes and misguided usage can be just as bad. A check page might be a bit too much, given we'd need to advertise this as an option and monitor for requests. An alternative is to restrict usage to users with X number of edits, or file mover rights? Just a thought. I suppose a start would be to simply require confirmation when unlinking say, over 50 pages. Additionally we should clearly state in the module that unlinking is (generally?) not to be used for redirects, as this was the same thing I ran into with another user — MusikAnimal talk 03:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Twinkle is more vulnerable to 'accidental' vandalism while Pywikipedia is more suitable for 'professional' vandalism. Consider a user testing the tool on Wikipedia:Sandbox, and then there are no longer any pages which link to the sandbox. Producing a warning when there are more than 10 or 50 links or something could be a first step to fix this. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox (3rd nomination) is a good example of what happens when users test Twinkle on the sandbox. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

{{New unreviewed article}}

The description of {{New unreviewed article}} in Twinkle is a bit misleading, and leads to the sort of abuse that caused the template to be nominated at TfD. The template documentation says "It should never be placed on someone else's article under any circumstances", but the Twinkle description just says "mark article for later review >", which strongly implies that it is for marking other editor's articles that you plan on reviewing later.

The easiest solution is just to remove this template from Twinkle altogether. This template is mostly designed to be used by the Article Wizard, but users can also place it on their own articles. However, an editor who is advanced enough to be using Twinkle is very unlikely to every need to use this tag, as they are also likely experienced enough not to need to tag their new article for review.

If the template is kept, is Twinkle smart enough to only place it on articles created by the user? If not, the description should be changed to read "mark your own article for later review >" and/or pop up an "are you sure?"-type warning. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Changes needed for the DI tab, specifically for F11

Per Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Why does F11 require notification, it has been determined that notifying the uploader in the event of a F11 speedy deletion is not optional. Because of this, something in regards to this requirement needs to be adjusted in the "DI" tab for Twinkle. Right now, for all DI options, notifying the uploader is set up to be optional but checked by default with no explanation of the checkbox. I'm not sure which change would be preferable, but the checkbox should either not be optional for F11 speedy deletion tags or a not should be added to F11 or the notify uploader box stating that notifying the uploader for F11 deletions is not optional. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I would make it work like BLPPROD – notify is checked and locked. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't like forcing the notification, because (a) sometimes I might like to give a personal notification instead of using the template, and (b) in spite of any policy stipulations, some experienced users get quite angry when you template them. I wouldn't be opposed to adding some kind of tooltip, either to the F11 radio button or to the notify checkbox itself. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Changes to a few templates used by Twinkle - heads up

Per an edit request at Template talk:Rfu#Editprotected changes were made to:

  1. Template:Rfu - documented preferred shorthand for Template:Di-replaceable fair use
  2. Template:Dfu - shorthand for Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale
  3. Template:File deletion template notice - documentation for the above
  4. Template:Di-replaceable fair use/doc - documentation for Template:Di-replaceable fair use

These are not breaking changes; these changes expose and expand functionality that already existed. fredgandt 12:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah - I'm just being polite :-) I'm expecting my reward in heaven the form of cake. fredgandt 13:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Fred Gandt:  Done -- John of Reading (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Nom and LOL. Thanks :-) fredgandt 14:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Both CSD and BLP PROD

Quite often while stub-sorting I find an article which I want to nominate both for speedy deletion and for BLP PROD. It might be that an admin could disagree with my assertion that it should be deleted as CSD-A7 or CSD G-11, but it is certainly about a living person and has no references. I'd like to add both deletion tags: I'd prefer it to disappear from the encyclopedia ASAP as a speedy deletion, but as second-best it has to be deleted in the 10 days unless a source is provided. Twinkle won't let me add a second deletion tag, so I have to do so manually, and notify the creating editor manually.

Please could Twinkle be modified to allow a speedy tag as well as a BLP PROD? Perhaps with an "Are your sure you want to add a second tag", as it already does for a PROD where there's already a PROD? PamD 17:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, for the record, when you say yes to the question about a second tag on PROD, what Twinkle then proceeds to actually add is Template:Proposed deletion endorsed, which is a special kind of deletion tag specifically intended for use as a second tag, and which Twinkle does not expose via any other means. That's not to say that your proposal is bad (in fact, I like it), but I just wanted to note that for the record. jcgoble3 (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle extensions

I've brought this up before, but wanted to write here about it to get some feedback from users. There are many things Twinkle does that people don't really use, and many things it doesn't do that we don't add because hardly anyone will use it. Enter the concept of "extensions". An example being this user rights manager script I wrote for admins working at WP:PERM. Beeblebrox mentioned he'd asked for something similar to be added to Twinkle, but surely we knew there's only a small handful of admins that would actually use it.

My thoughts are that the extensions themselves can live anywhere, whether it be in the MediaWiki namespace like other gadgets or in someone's userspace. This allows anyone – non-Twinkle devs – to write whatever they want to be added to Twinkle. We won't officially support any extensions, they're a "use at your own risk" type thing. From an implementation standpoint, the extensions would work just like any other Twinkle module. So essentially when Twinkle loads, it checks if you have any extensions registered in your preferences, then loads them just like it loads any other module.

The idea here again is we don't unnecessary bundle these new tools into the giant suite that Twinkle has become, knowing they will only appeal to so many people.

Does this sound like a worthwhile effort? Can you think of other extensions (specifically non-admin ones) that we might want to add? Thank you for your time — MusikAnimal talk 01:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Full Support, with the note that this might be a wonderful solution to the issue of the unlink module. Just spin it (and maybe other little-used modules currently part of the package) off into an officially supported extension, so that unlink can't be accidentally used by newbies without explicitly enabling it in Twinkle preferences, and maybe special-case unlink to pop up a warning message about its power and the responsibility to not abuse it when somebody clicks it in preferences. That way, if it gets misused, we can go back to the user and point to that warning, and they can't say they didn't know. Note that I'm not proposing adding new extensions to "officially supported" status, just unlink and maybe others that are already part of the package (I don't really know what, if anything, might qualify for that). jcgoble3 (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea, and I seem to recall mentioning it many years ago, but I would ask: If you wanted to provide an extra, opt-in Twinkle-like script, why wouldn't you just make it a separate gadget? Our morebits script library is there for anyone to use. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I would argue that the list of gadgets is too bloated as it is. More gadgets is the last thing we need. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of userspace draft header

Following up from this ANI discussion involving @Cryptic and Legacypac: if someone reports a userspace draft page for U5 deletion, the original userspace draft header is removed for some reason. This kind of makes U5 CSD review more difficult since plausible drafts are specifically exempt. I think that's the only issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Chiming in to note that this is a fairly serious issue - U5 specifically exempts plausible drafts, but tagging pages for U5 removes the {{Userspace draft}} template. This directly subverts the correct application of U5. Would be good to get this fixed post-haste. A2soup (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Preventing use of Twinkle

I have just blocked an editor for edit warring, during which they were using Twinkle (despite me previously warning them against using it inappropriately). Is there any way to prevent someone from using it? Cheers, Number 57 14:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

In MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.js I've found this: "Twinkle blacklist was removed per consensus at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive221#New_Twinkle_blacklist_proposal". --XXN, 17:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ability to remove Twinkle's rollback functions, without having to disable Twinkle completely

I've found that having both Twinkle non-admin rollback, as well as normal rollback at the same time can be annoying because multiple rollback links are shown (see File:Rollback_and_Twinkle_diff.png). I still want to keep Twinkle, but I don't want the rollback functions. Is there any easy way to do this, and if not, could it possibly be added? Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 00:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: Head over to your Twinkle preferences and look for Show rollback links on these pages. Uncheck as desired, save your changes, and viola — MusikAnimal talk 00:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: It worked, thanks! I had no idea you could do that... — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 01:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Expert-subject

{{Expert-subject}} was moved, twice, earlier this month and is now at {{Expert needed}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Made a pull request. [11] --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Merged. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files is closed

At this discussion, there was agreement to close down possibly unfree files. Please remove possibly unfree files from the list of deletion discussion options. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw some pings at various places, so thank you to Steel1943 for those. I've made the code change and would ask MusikAnimal to please deploy it. Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Is it possible to expedite this update somehow? There are editors who are creating daily subpages for PUF still via Twinkle, but PUF was shut down days ago. Steel1943 (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, meant to do this when I was originally pinged but forgot! All set — MusikAnimal talk 04:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/714719715

How exactly did this happen? Deadstar (talk · contribs) listed a file for discussion, and the edit summary shows that he used Twinkle. However, Twinkle removed everything else from the page so that the page only contained this single request. I see that this has happened several times today, so there are more requests which need to be restored. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Thanks for letting us know. It appears that when MusikAnimal synced the change that removed PUF support from Twinkle, some earlier changes from January were synced at the same time. These changes, authored by a Google Code-in student, involve adding preview functionality to the XFD module, and I was under the impression that they had already been synced at some point. The changes from January contain a bug which causes FFD nominations to overwrite the whole daily log page, which I will fix (and ask MA to sync) as soon as possible. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Just synced [12] — MusikAnimal talk 14:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed

Can you add to the protection options the new extended protection status that restricts editors who can edit a page to those whose accounts are at least 30 days old AND have made 500 edits? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 15:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: Can you tell me why it should be added to twinkle? According to WP:30/500 only the Arbitration Committee can authorize that protection level, so it is not something that can be requested at WP:RFPP. Qed237 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Qed237: WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 put this restriction on all articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Any administrator may apply the corresponding level of protection to a page in that topic. We need this at RFPP in case an editor wishes to bring a non-extended-protected P-I article to administrative attention (e.g. if a new page in the topic is created). BethNaught (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
(ec)
That is not true. The 500/30 rule for Gamergate controversy was authorized at AE by an admin and any admin should be able to add this level of protection to articles impacted by WP:ARBPIA3 (see Arbitration motion). Pages involved with Palestine-Israel conflict were already covered by the 500/30 rule but required admins and editors to monitor these pages and undo or delete edits from editors who didn't meet the 500/30 requirements. This level of protection would enforce this restriction without editors having to manually undo edits. Liz Read! Talk! 15:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@BethNaught and Liz: Got it, thanks for the explanations. Qed237 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
In the works. For this I want to add some extra layer of confirmation, making it clear what it is intended for both to admins and users requesting the protection — MusikAnimal talk 01:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 Done Let me know if you have any issues — MusikAnimal talk 18:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Feature request

Hey all, thanks for the continued hard work on a great tool! Had a few feature requests:

Fixed window size: Is there any way to have Twinkle remember my preferred window size on my local computer? When I create a sock report, I need to use a much larger text field so I can keep track of all the info I'm adding, but every time I open Twinkle, I have to resize the window, which (after doing this hundreds of times) is getting tedious. Global preferences wouldn't be ideal, because I sometimes use my tablet, and my desktop computer has much different display settings, so local cookies or something would be ideal.

Add sockmaster field to Block User interface:

Proposed addition of sockmaster field and demo of functionality

When an admin speedy deletes an article for G5 (for banned or blocked user) after clicking the radio button, a field opens up, which allows the admin to enter the sockmaster's name, and this information is appended to the deletion notice in some form[13]. When I block users/IPs, it would save time if on the Block User screen, a similar field was present, so I could enter the sockmaster's name, and this information would propagate automatically to my edit summary. Though it may seem a trivial amount of time savings, the process goes like this:

A) I first have to copy the SPI location from the SPI page and paste: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nagendra NJ
B) I then have to format it: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nagendra NJ]]
C) Pipe, copy, and paste again: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nagendra NJ|Nagendra NJ]] (somewhat of an optional step, but I prefer it for cleaner block notices.)
D) Then go to the user's page and tag {{sockpuppet|Nagendra NJ|blocked}} which takes me to request #3:

Automatic tagging of blocked users: This is a bit more "big picture". Can we add automatic user page tagging to the Block User functionality? Assuming that we can do #2 and add a sockmaster field to the Block User interface, if an admin enters a name, it makes sense that the userpage would be tagged upon clicking submit. Obviously this requires some thought because we use different templates for different scenarios: Nagendra NJ is a sockmaster and we want to block IP 49.249.54.55 on duck evidence. We'd flag the IP using {{IPsock|Nagendra NJ}} If we're blocking a named sock like Shyaaam, we use {{sockpuppet|Nagendra NJ|blocked}}. We would also need an option for when a CheckUser blocks an editor based on CU data, and {{sockpuppet|Nagendra NJ|cuconfirmed}} would be used.

All thoughts appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I like your suggestions, not that I can use the last two. I would like to be able to set a global window size like can be done for the CSD window currently. Remembering the window size would also work. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
#1 we can definitely do using localStorage, which would respect the setting on a per-device level. While I'm at it there's a few other settings I want to add. #2 and #3 are great ideas but there's a fair amount of work involved. It'd be a while before I personally could get to it, but perhaps another Twinkle dev would be willing to take it on. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 14:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Whatever you or the other kind folk can contribute, MusikAnimal, I'm grateful for. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
In the interim, you can use User:Animum/easyblock.js as it's a single click SPI block for socks. —SpacemanSpiff 23:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

File talk CSD

If you wish to nominate a file talk page for speedy deletion, Twinkle shows file deletion criteria (F1, F2, ...). This is not correct; file deletion criteria do not cover file talk pages, and you should only see the general criteria (G1, G2, ...). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been that way since "Twinkle 2.0" in mid-2011. I think it was changed by accident, although it's worth noting that since the very beginning in 2007, Twinkle has allowed you to nominate Category talk: pages for category CSD criteria, Template talk: pages for template CSD criteria, etc. Should all of those allowances be removed? Would it be a correct reading of the policy to allow only general CSD criteria on talk pages (plus redirect criteria when needed, and user criteria on user talk subpages)? — This, that and the other (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
My sense is that namespace-specific tags should not apply to the namespace talk pages because they usually don't apply there. Redirect criteria are murkier; mainspace article criteria usually don't apply to mainspace redirects but e.g userspace criteria do apply to userspace redirects.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that the user namespace is special:
  • WP:U1 and WP:U2 can be used for redirects, except that WP:U2 can't be used for certain 'acceptable' redirects. I don't see how WP:U3 or WP:U5 could be used for redirects.
  • WP:U2, WP:U3 and WP:U5 can be used for talk pages, except that WP:U2 can't be used for certain 'acceptable' redirects. WP:U1 can't be used for talk pages (except if the page shouldn't have been in this namespace in the first place, I suppose).
On the other hand, article, template, file, portal and category criteria do not ever seem to apply to talk pages. The criteria are unlikely to apply to redirects, although there may be some situations where some criterion applies to particularly inappropriate redirects. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"Restore this revision" does not add page to watchlist

(repost of Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 37#Revert to revision not added to watchlist)
Although all checkboxes including "Restore this revision" under "Add pages to watchlist for these types of reversions:" in WP:TW/PREFS are checked by default, when I use the "Restore this revision" feature of Twinkle, the page is not added to my watchlist. For example, Special:Diff/715907120 reverted 2016–17 NBA season to revision 698258353, but that page was not added to my watchlist. This bug should be fixed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Proposed deletion updated

On changes made to Template:Proposed deletion (whose backend is Template:Proposed deletion/dated):

  • This wasn't any breaking change, so no immediate change is necessary.
  • Added support for an additional param |help (used like |help=off). Adding this line hides the "Nominator:" message that suggests notifying the original page creator. This is similar to how {{db-??}} already has it in its own extended syntax (which Twinkle uses).

Just an FYI, if that helps, since Twinkle PROD already notifies the original page creator, as far as I know. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 17:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)>

|help=off update noted at github. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 17:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

XFD missing

Why is the XFD link missing from local file information pages of Commons files? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently because "unneeded local pages of files on Commons are eligible for CSD F2". I guess the thinking is that these pages are either needed, or unneeded; and if they are unneeded, it should be obvious enough to use CSD F2 (or a general criterion like CSD G1). What XFD venue would you propose to send these pages to, anyway? FFD would just be confusing, because it's meant for discussion of files, not of file description pages. MFS would be the other venue that comes to mind, but again I have to wonder why you want to send file description pages for Commons files to XFD in the first place. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
If there is a dispute about whether they are needed, then they should go to MFD, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/heading#What not to list here VII 4. I discovered that the XFD link was missing when I needed to create a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:HMCS Preserver (AOR 510).jpg). --Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
In some ways that MFD discussion confirms my belief that CSD F2 always applies to those pages if they're unneeded! But I'll see if I can get XFD added to Commons files with a local page. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion.

Maybe add what you can do in cases of Twinkle abuse. I know the shortcuts are there now, but I missed them before. When I click on them they redirect to the current page. To new users, like me I don't understand where to use those shortcuts or where to report it when I think someone has abused Twinkle. Truthseeker1022 (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Abuse of Twinkle should be handled in the same way as other kinds of disruptive editing. That is, communicate with and warn the user on their talk page, and/or make a report at WP:AIV or WP:ANI as required. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

{{Split media}} and {{Split_media_-_processed}}

Per the concerns of Stefan2 , this template is being given a major overhaul, it should thusly be removed from TWINKLE until certain concerns have been fully addressed. (see - Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 2#Template:Split media - processed) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle bug

Tried to do the RFD, failed to notify editor User:Фред-Продавец звёзд with error message "invalid token." It created the discussion entry [14] but didn't tag the redirect itself nor notify the creator. NE Ent 20:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

New user warning template

Dear all,

I have created a new template, {{uw-notenglishedit}}, which is intended to be used as a user warning template for people who have added non-English content to articles (unlike {{uw-notenglish}} which is for pages created in a foreign language, and {{uw-english}} which is for non-English talk page comments). Would you be able to add this into Twinkle, and if not, does the template have any problems?

Also, would you mind adding {{uw-uploadfirst}} into Twinkle? I seem to remember it being available a long time ago but I can't see it in the warn function anymore. The template {{uw-imageuse}} has now been merged into it, so it covers images linked from one's computer as well as from external websites. Thankyou, Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding uw-uploadfirst/uw-imageuse, this was discussed shortly after its removal: Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_37#Template:Uw-incompleteAFD A few people said they still use them, I merged them to address one of the reasons for removal, but no action seems to have ever been taken with regard to restoring them to Twinkle. jcgoble3 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

New wrapper for multiple submissions using Template:Rfd2

A new wrapper {{subst:rfd2 multi}} simplifies multiple (currently up to 10 but easily expandable) submissions using {{subst:rfd2}}.

Rather than filling out several templates with particular params in the first, middle(s) and last to get the correct multiple layout, this one template takes all the arguments and sorts them all for you.

Perhaps Twinkle devs and users will appreciate its comparative simplicity in use? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"Expert needed"

Twinkle allows me to add {{Expert needed}} and asks me to give the name of the relevant Wikiproject, but does not invite me to add a "reason" or "talk" parameter - but one or other of these is compulsory. It would be helpful if Twinkle offered either or both of these fields for completion. Thanks. PamD 07:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I added this request to the to-do list. – voidxor 00:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Option to add an article to CSD log

I've added an idea to the to do list but as that has less than 30 viewers, I thought I'd put it here so it's actually seen. Would it be possible to add an option of whether or not to add an article to the CSD log when tagging? There are some (such as move deletion requests) that serve no purpose in the log. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: This is mostly covered by a section in the Twinkle preferences panel - search for "Do not create a userspace log entry when tagging with these criteria". -- John of Reading (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Change to speedy deletion

There is now consensus that empty categories should not be deleted until they have been empty for seven days (rather than the previous four). Please revise Twinkle accordingly. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It'll happen soon. Note that the way Twinkle applies the CSD template doesn't seem to be affected by the policy change; the only change required is to Twinkle's tooltip text. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Question

I don't know if anybody else is having this problem or if it's just happening to me, but very nearly every time I've used the XFD module in the past few weeks I've had an unspecified error (the error message returned by the API is just "error") which prevented completion of the process the first time, and forced me to cut and paste my statement into a second attempt to create the XFD nomination. The second attempt succeeds, but fails the step where you get automatically taken to the XFD discussion itself — instead it just hangs on the "steps completed" box, and I have to manually go to the discussion. Again, I don't know if this is a common issue or if it's just me — but I need it fixed somehow, as it's getting annoying and unproductive. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The past week this seems to be happening for many things including rollbacks and user warnings. Either it errors while not proceeding or will dead–end without seeming to complete. I sometimes have to look at the user's tlak page to see if the warning was posted.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
(update) "Tagging article: error "error" occurred while contacting the API."--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

New revert thing breaks Twinkle warnings

See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Rollback function has been changed

I've been away from anti-vandalism work for a few weeks, and on my return I find that when I rollback an edit from a user contribs page or a revision history page I find there's a new twiddly thing and a pop-up in the top RH corner that tells me what I've done and asks if I want to see the diff. This eye-candy has broken Twinkle's "Warn/notify user" pop-up in that the linked article field is no longer filled in (necessitating a copy & paste). Can this be fixed?  —SMALLJIM  22:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to fix this. I can do a quick and dirty hack, but I'll try to submit a change to the MediaWiki JavaScript code to allow user scripts and gadgets to hook into the rollback functionality. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
MusikAnimal, could you take a quick squiz at this and sync it if it looks OK? Thanks. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@This, that and the other and MusikAnimal: thanks for jumping on this quickly, TTO. It looks, though, as if the change to rollback has been or is about to be undone, temporarily since it broke most AV tools. If I'm reading T136375 correctly, devs will be checking with tool developers next week about migrating to the new rollback system.  —SMALLJIM  17:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Minor grammatical errors in the "Warn/notify user" dialog

The following combo-box entries need hyphens:

  • Single-issue notices
  • Single-issue warnings
  • {{uw-plagiarism}}: Copying from public-domain sources without attribution

Sorry to report this here, but I didn't feel like acquainting myself with GitHub and creating an account just to report one bug. – voidxor 05:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Bump. – voidxor 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I added this request to the to-do list. – voidxor 00:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done by This, that and the other. Thank you! – voidxor 00:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"Violating" the three revert rule

Issuing a {{Uw-3rr}} warning with Twinkle leaves an edit summary of "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule." The template itself is appropriate for users who are not yet violating the three-revert-rule, and the edit summary may be seen as a personal attack. I would suggest a more generic wording, perhaps just removing the word "Violating". Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm de-archiving this because I have again seen a user raising concerns which appear to result from this wording. See [15]. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I could support "Warning: Three-revert rule". ―Mandruss ☎ 17:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Note that only Twinkle's edit summary is a problem ('Warning: Violating the three-revert rule'). The actual text left on the page by {{uw-3rr}} is appropriate and should be kept ('..you are currently engaged in an edit war'). I agree with Mandruss that 'Warning: Three-revert rule' would be OK as an edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with above. The warning itself doesn't say the user has violated the edit summary, so neither should the edit summary. I've submitted a pull request for this change. Stickee (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (EC) support Amending edit summary...I would add that the actual text left on the page by {{uw-3rr}} is appropriate only if the editor is actually "currently engaged in an edit war"'...in an ideal world this should go without saying...but this is Wikipedia and it needs to be said. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I totally disagree with the initial post; this warning is only appropriate for someone already violating the rule. The edit summary is therefore appropriate. This is a tempest in a teapot to my mind but I could agree with Mandruss's suggestion of "Warning:Three-revert rule". Chris Troutman (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
People may differ about when it is appropriate to issue the warning. As Stickee referenced in their pull request, the description in WP:WARN is "Violation/potential violation". One of the benefits of automated/templated messages is they can be carefully crafted to avoid unduly creating offence or misunderstandings, and I think this refinement was worthwhile. Thanks for your support. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-English user warning templates

I think that it could be useful for us to have the templates in Category:Non-English user warning templates to be included in the Twinkle interface. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 05:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Protection tagging

There should be a {{pp-unsourced}} template that's included in Twinkle. I'm having to place {{pp-vandalism}} or {{pp-BLP}} on the pages, even when these don't really make much sense for the given situation... Vensco (T / C) 04:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Feature request: Remembering window size preferences across devices

Hey all, it would be very helpful to me to have Twinkle remember my various window size preferences. Currently, every time I write up an SPI report, I have to fudge with the window sizing, which is a bit annoying over the hundreds of SPI reports I've filed. I'd like for my other Twinkle window sizes to be remembered as well. I almost always add diffs and notes to user warnings, so I like to see that they're all formatted properly before I send. This requires me to size the window appropriately, and it would be much quicker for me to size it and forget it.

The one trick is that the window sizing should be device-specific. The window I'd use on my tablet is going to be sized differently than on my desktop. (I've requested this change before, and MusikAnimal seemed to think that it would be a fairly easy tweak, but then he got swamped and the request got archived.) Thanks in advance if you can make this change! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

See WT:Twinkle/Archive 38 § Feature request. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
There's a long backlog of Twinkle feature requests, unfortunately. We try our best to get to them when we can. If you're a coder, you might find it more expedient to have a go at coding it up yourself; if not, we will try not to keep you waiting for too long, but we can't promise anything. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Uw-disruptive3 wording

I think the wording in Template:Uw-disruptive3, if an article is linked, is confusing - "Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at (insert article here)." This wording makes it seem like the user has stopped editing disruptively at that article but is editing disruptively at other articles, but often, disruptive editors could possibly continue to edit at the same article. Any suggestions on alternate wording? ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 10:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It might be better to bring this up at WT:UW. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Add count to the Batch Deletion pop-up

When you have a category open such as Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as blatant NOTWEBHOST, One can invoke the D–batch option, which will open up a pop-up. There is a heading "pages to delete" which is followed by a list of the pages. My request is to change "pages to delete" to "Pages to delete (n)" where n represents the count of the selected pages.

Request is easy enough to state, but the rationale will require little background. When I am working on deletions I typically pick a category of items to delete such as the category listed above. I then opened every entry in the category, review each one to ensure that it meets the criteria, and then, rather than manually delete each entry I use the twinkle D–batch option to delete them all.

I recently follow this procedure for some G 13's. The category at the time of my review contained nine candidates. I reviewed the mall confirm they all met the criteria and then use the D batch option. For reasons I have not yet been able to identify that option listed 17 pages not nine. I ended up deleting the G 13's as well as a couple of articles, I help page a user page and a couple of articles. (See User_talk:Sphilbrick#WP:N for more information.) While it is quite likely I did something wrong, I haven't yet figured out what I did wrong so I'm trying to take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. One helpful step would be if the D batch pop up page listed the number of entries. I have the category page open at the time I'm doing this which clearly states there are nine members of the category. If the D batch pop up indicates that there are 17 items in the list that will be a heads up that something is wrong. Arguably, I should be able to tell by inspection that a list of 17 items doesn't look like a list of nine, but I think it would still be helpful and relatively easy to provide the count in the pop up. I note that the count is provided after the deletion but it would be better to have the count before executing the batch rather than after.

If anyone can identify what might've gone wrong to cause this, I would be grateful to hear the reason so I can make sure to avoided in the future, but I still think it would be useful to have the count in the pop-up screen.

Optionally, it would be nice if the count adjusted to reflect manual un-checks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Does the deletion tool list the pages which were in the category when the category page was opened or the pages which are in the category when you open the Twinkle menu? Twinkle's unlinking tool appears to get the file usage at the time when the menu is opened, something you'll notice if the file usage has changed since the file information page was opened. If Twinkle downloads more up-to-date category members when you open the menu, then you might make mistakes with recent additions/removals to the category, and I assume that speedy deletion categories constantly get new category members.
Sphilbrick, try opening the Twinkle menu immediately after you have opened the category page, and before you start checking if pages satisfy deletion or not, then leave the menu open while you're checking the pages in the category. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try that. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

CSD G6 - unecessary dab page

The pop-up help provided on this is incorrect: it includes orphaned dab pages which disambiguate "two or fewer" existing pages. The template message, and the relevant part of WP:G6, say "Deleting a disambiguation page that links to only one extant article and whose title includes "(disambiguation)". It's a significant difference. Please could someone correct the wording in the popup help, as it's currently distinctly unhelpful. Thanks. PamD 10:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Empanda (disambiguation) is an example of a page which does not fit WP:G6 but comes within Twinkle's version of the criterion. PamD 11:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

AfD added to wrong date

@Yash!: Twinkle added the AfD for Adhitya Iyer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 20 when it should have instead been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 18. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I did not notice that. Do you have an idea for what would have caused that? Yash! 12:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This happens when your computer's clock is wrong, or your computer is set to the wrong date or wrong time zone. I would encourage you to check your computer's date and time settings. Ideally Twinkle wouldn't need to rely on your computer's clock, but that is currently what it does. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Notifying bots

See User talk:Stefan2#Redirect deletion notices on User talk:AnomieBOT. The "Notify page creator if possible" box in the XfD dialog should be either disabled and permanently unchecked or hidden if the creator of the page is a bot. 24.205.8.104 (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Ux criteria

Why can't I mark userspace redirects for deletion under Ux criteria, such as User:Launchballer/Stay With Me Till Dawn under U1 or User:Oxford Neurological Society under U2?--Launchballer 17:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Rollback vandal and plain rollback

When I used to click on Rollback Vandal and just plain Rollbank in the upper right, it would automatically take me to the user's Talk page so I could leave a warning. It no longer does that, and I have to go through extra steps to warn users. I assume this is somehow related to the rollback problems that started last month (?) but am not sure. What do I do?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: What browser are you using and what's your "Open user talk page after these types of reversions:" Twinkle preference set to? --NeilN talk to me 12:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: The box was unchecked, but why? I didn't change it, and it worked before. Is it a new preference? When the rollback changes occurred, did something happen to user preferences. I tried it at WP:SANDBOX, but it didn't take me to my Talk page. Will it not work with myself? My browser is Chrome at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Bbb23: When I returned to editing on the weekend there were a couple of preferences I had to set before everything was working as before. Sandbox reverting did not take me to my talk page either but all the reverts I've done since I've come back and set preferences have opened the user talk window. --NeilN talk to me 12:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This was resolved. It turned out to be a setting in my browser that I had just started using.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    A while back we made the "When opening a user talk page, open it" default to "in a new tab" rather than a new window, since tabs are more preferred these days. This may have had something to do with your issue — MusikAnimal talk 18:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Template changes

I want to add a header and internal signing to {{uw-copyright-new}}, e.g., 

{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{header}}}|1|=={{{header-text|Copyright problem in [[:{{{1}}}]]}}}==}}
and
{{ #if: {{{sig|}}} | {{{sig}}}}}

but I see in its documentation it has {{Twinkle standard installation}} so I don't want to add it in a way that would affect Twinkle usage. Will adding these, as proposed above, have any affect?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. This would be a problem, not just for Twinkle, but quite possibly other utilities that post user warning templates. You'll notice that the entire uw- series of warnings are standardised such that none of them have headers or signatures built into the template. I'm not sure why this particular template should be any exception. — This, that and the other (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification G12

I do a fair amount of copyright issue investigation but I've normally done so after someone else identifies the potential problem. I started looking at the new copy patrol tool. In some cases I had dent if Ihave an article that is a clear copyright violation and I want to delete it. I also want to notify the relevant editor.

I note that if I choose "tag page only, don't delete" I have an option to notify the page creator if possible. But if I don't want to tag the page and I want to delete it I'd still like to notify the creator. I get that the notification is intended to let them know so they can take corrective action and by definition if I deleted it, they won't have the option to contest it.

Is there a way to do delete using twinkle and send a notification?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I've been wanting to add such functionality, but first we need to clean up the post-deletion notification templates. E.g. it doesn't make sense to say "A tag has been placed requesting speedy deletion" when you've already deleted it. Instead I'd like to have it use something like {{nothanks-warn-deletion}}, only that template is terribly written (copyvios are often done in good-faith, needs to be more new-user-friendly), and has a nonsensical title as well, in my opinion. See the "See also" section of the template doc for the other post-deletion templates. They all could use some rewording, and we also need one for each speedy criteria. When this happens, I can add them to Twinkle, and eventually you will be able to delete the page and issue the template directly from the CopyPatrol interface :) I hope to get around to cleaning up the templates soon. Best — MusikAnimal talk 18:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, the good news is that I didn't miss something obvious. I agree we need to be careful in wording - so many people are committing copyvios, but not maliciously, they just seem unaware that it is a problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse welcome?

I see that Twinkle has a variety of welcome options. I didn't see a specific invitation for the Teahouse. If I missed it, please point it out. If it doesn't exist, I think it would be a good idea. I'm just about to remove substantial contributions by a new user, and I'd like to invite them to the Teahouse. Obviously, I can do that manually, but it has become common enough that I'd like to be able to do it from Twinkle.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: You are aware that you can add templates to your Twinkle preferences (You can add other welcome templates, or user subpages that are welcome templates (prefixed with "User:"). Don't forget that these templates are substituted onto user talk pages.) Mlpearc (open channel) 14:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't, but I guess I am now. I'll still suggest that Welcome to the Teahouse ought to be in the default, but I will look into how to add it for myself.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Welcome. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 14:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of vote option

It would be of great help if the vote option is included. I mean that in AfDs, and other nominations for discussion, it would be of great help to the users if they can vote automatically. This can be done by providing options such as delete, keep, speedy delete, speedy keep, redirect etc.. and it would also be helpful while an idea is proposed to support or to oppose, especially is RfA. This is just an idea, please your views and opinions regarding this to make Twinkle more beneficial for editing. Thank you. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Including mathematics in the deletion rationale

In Special:Diff/729660618, Twinkle replaced all | with {{subst:!}}. This doesn't work since subst: doesn't work within <math>...</math>. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Feature request

I think I've identified two areas that would benefit massively from having tabs in Twinkle. The first, is semiautomating WP:DYK nominations. The current structure seems like it comes straight out of 2005 (and it probably is), and involves creating subpages and formatting templates before somebody comes to review it. The process is frankly Byzantine, and it would help if we had a Twinkle box to put the page title, proposed hook, the citation, optional image, etc so it could initiate the process for you like we already have with XFD.

The second area is Community sanctions and Arbcom discretionary sanctions. For something as simple as a topic ban, it involves looking up the right template, pasting on their user talk, filling in the parameters and formatting everything right, inserting the code for the appropriate decision, closing the AE discussion with a summary and logging on the appropriate page. This would benefit from a system similar to our Warn function, where it only shows up on Userpages and lets you choose the template from a dropdown and fill in the appropriate blanks.

Please let me know whether this is 1) technically possible and 2) a good idea. Regards, The WordsmithTalk to me 21:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Stub Template

I noticed that the ability to tag with the stub template seems to have been removed...

Darklight Shadows 20:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It was never present, as far as I know. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding a custom option

Hoping someone can help me. I've been using Twinkle for a while and I'm wondering if someone can explain how to add a custom template to twinkle. I'm working on cleaning out Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images and one of the things I've been doing is leaving a message on the talk pages of people I see adding thumbs to infoboxes. At the moment I am simply copying and pasting the below message and then replacing [[PAGE]] with the name of the page in question. I would really like to be able to just click on a dropdown in Twinkle and have this done. Can anyone help me with this? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 

==Use of thumbnails in Infoboxes ==
Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to [[PAGE]]. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up [[:Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images]]. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see [[WP:INFOBOXIMAGE]]). If you have any questions, let me know! :-)  You can respond on my talk page, or here. If you respond here, please include {{tlc|ping|zackmann08}} in your response so I am notified. --~~~~
One way would be to create your own template. Create a new subpage, let's say User:Zackmann08/NaughtyThumb (no, don't call it that...) Place that message into that page, remove your signature though as Twink autoadds, and save. Also rather than the nowiki-page combo try {{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:{{{1|}}}| to [[:{{{1}}}]]}} which lets you add the article name to the twinkle warning section in the popup. Then open your twinkle preferences, section warn user, subsection custom warning. Add your subpage location, User:Zackmann08/NaughtyThumb, without any curly brackets as you commonly see in templates. Save, refresh, etc., and you should be good to go. Results may vary.. I have only done one for persistent badlist adders (User:Loriendrew/uw-badlist3) hopefully correctly.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@Loriendrew: worked like a charm! And that is EXACTLY what I am going to call it ;-) --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

What am I missing?

I wanted to tag Draft:1/2 Sibling as a A10 of Sibling#Half-sibling, but it isn't an option. Is that because it is a draft?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. As only show on mainspace pages.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
What's the rationale? It is extremely common for someone to create a draft page about a subject, not realizing that the subject is already covered in Wikipedia. I'm sure I've seen such pages nominated for deletion — are they all done manually?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you raise this at WT:CSD. Twinkle simply does its best to follow the policy. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

New optional diff= parameter for uw-npa series

See Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Added optional diff parameter to no personal attack templates. I've also filed a feature request for Twinkle regarding this, https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle/issues/349 . Mattflaschen - Talk 05:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Need more restrictions on delinking feature

There is going to need to be more restrictions on using Twinkle to delink articles. Vandalistic troll Cow cleaner 5000 has used the delinking feature several times to delink Weekly Shōnen Jump‎, causing mass disruption across ~1,000 articles. The most recent of these attempts was this morning. —Farix (t | c) 11:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before; I would simply say that when it comes to a tool like Twinkle, restrictions can be easily circumvented by determined users, and unfortunately, this individual certainly appears to be determined. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

uw-agf-sock edit summary

While the link to the sock account in the body of the text links to the user account, in the edit summary it's linked to articlespace. (diff) Needs a "User:" adding to the edit summary. for (;;) (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Changing the text of substituted deletion notification template: how to?

I have been using Twinkle to perform article deletion nominations (XfD) but would like to either propose or boldly make some changes to the text that ends up on the talk page of an article's creator notifying them of the deletion. I have had a look at the relevant Twinkle documentation, but could find no place where I could edit the templated text. I am assuming that Twinkle is inserting some kind of substituted template onto the user's talk page, but I can't tell what the name of that template is so that I can edit it. It may be a protected template, which is fine— I still want to know where it is and what it is called so that I can propose changes to it. Can someone point me there? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444: Do you have a link to where it is used ? Mlpearc (open channel) 23:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@KDS4444: For AfD, it is {{Afd-notice}}. The others should be here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
If you're referring to this one It's {{Article for deletion/dated}}. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked status of editor

When hovering over a user name can we get an indicator showing if the editor/IP is currently blocked? --NeilN talk to me 02:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js will strike out usernames that have been blocked (via Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, last one under Appearance). WP:POPUPS also indicates if a user is blocked. Do either of those work for your use case? — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Aaah - I'm an idiot. I confused Popups with Twinkle. Popups doesn't work in my use case but I will try the gadget. --NeilN talk to me 03:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Feature requests

I have two features that I would LOVE to see added to this awesome tool.

First, I sometimes use Twinkle to quickly post messages on user talk pages. For example I recently created a new project (WP:WILDFIRE) and used Twinkle to post a message on talk pages of users I wished to invite to the project. I added this template User:Zackmann08/Wildfire-Welcome to my list of custom welcome messages. It worked fantastically! My only issue was that the edit summary for each of the messages I posted was "Welcome to Wikipedia". For example this edit. Would be really nice to be able to add a custom edit message. Or perhaps instead of having just "Warn" and "Welcome" options, we could get a "custom" section?

Second, I often use Twinkle to submit WP:CSD and WP:PROD requests. It would be really nice to be able to do WP:AFD via twinkle as well!

Thanks! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Nominating pages at any XfD venue (including AfD) is already available. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@JJMC89: I think this sums me up right now: I'm an idiot. Sorry about that. Thank you so much! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mfdx

Template:Mfdx has been nominated for deletion. The disussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 9#Template:Mfdx, and I am posting here per the twinkle notice on that template's documentation. Pppery (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Template move discussions

See Template talk:Cfd#Requested move 8 August 2016 and Template talk:Tfm#Requested move 9 August 2016. clpo13(talk) 19:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Rough translation

Template:Rough translation has been nominated for merging with Template:Cleanup translation. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. I am unsure whether this merge discussion requires a post here or not, but am posting one just to be sure. Pppery (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Starting a requested move on Template:Spam-warn-userpage

Just a heads up, I have started a requested move to propose moving Template:Spam-warn-userpage to Template:Db-spamuser-notice for consistency with other speedy deletion notifications. —MRD2014 T C 14:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This move has been completed. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle won't BLP PROD if there's already a CSD template

If an article on a living person has no sources, it should be tagged with {{BLP PROD}}. Twinkle says so, advising against the use of {{BLP unsourced}} for new articles. But if the article has already been nominated for speedy deletion, Twinkle won't let me add BLP PROD.

Speedy deletion is not always a certainty: the deleting admin may decide that there is an assertion of importance to survive A7 or that there is enough content or context in the article to pass A3 or A1, or the article might be improved before an admin checks it. But the BLP PROD is not subjective: if there are no references or sources, reliable or not, then the article on a living person has no place in the encyclopedia and should be proposed for deletion using BLP PROD, which gives interested parties a week to sort it out. Please tweak Twinkle so that I can add BLP PROD to an article such as this version of Ackzz. Thanks. PamD 11:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

SPI reopening

When an SPI is open and someone wants to add another account (named or IP), they just add it to the same SPI. However, if you use Twinkle, it adds another SPI. Sometimes you end up with many SPIs and it's a pain in the butt because it's easier to handle them as one. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Laibwart for an example. One time a clerk complained to the filer who got irate and said it was all Twinkle's fault. Is there anything that can be done to make Twinkle more intelligent when adding to an existing open SPI?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Having fallen into this one myself in the past (who knows, I may have been the irate filer in question) I'd enthusiastically support this request. As I recall, the decision whether to start a new report or to add to an existing report is dependent on the status option in the {{SPI case status}}. Bbb23, a clear list of which status goes which way would, I'd guess, go a long way toward making this request a reality. Cabayi (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You weren't the irate filer I had in mind. The simplest thing is for Twinkle to add to the existing SPI as long as the date of the SPI and the date of the addition are the same. The only status where you wouldn't want to do that is "close". In an ideal world, the editor wouldn't use Twinkle in these circumstances, but just edit the existing SPI, but last time I looked, we don't have an ideal world.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Another move notification

See Template talk:Cfd-notify#Requested move 11 August 2016 Pppery (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The above move discussion has been withdrawn, but a new (similar) one has been started here. Input is requested. Primefac (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Problematic entries in CSD logs

I'm increasingly coming across problematic entries in people's "CSD log"s, particularly G10 (attack pages) and G11 (spam), where the problem is in the title of the page. Additionally spam titles are usually littered all over the spammer's talk page as well as in edit summaries. It would be nice if there was a solution where the spam and vandalism was allowed to be actually deleted, and I didn't have to spend as much time cleaning up after Twinkle users as the spammers and vandals. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Attack page titles should never be repeated by Twinkle; if you can identify an instance where this is occurring then I'll look at it. As for G11, that is less of an issue in my view. In particular, I don't think links to deleted pages in CSD logs could be considered by a reasonable person as spam links. Userspace is noindexed, so indexing by search engines is not a consideration. The spammer's talk page is a different issue; I don't know what to make of that. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
If I can first deal with the noindex, which is something that's always bugged me. Noindex is not an effective way to keep things out of search engines.
I can give some examples of the problems I'm talking about. In doing so it occurs to me that it's also G3 and G5 entries, again only where the problem is in the title. First example Admins getting their penizes chopped off and fed to their dogs. This was tagged G3 and I deleted it with G5, but nonetheless this is both G10 and more importantly (if it wasn't about tough-skinned admins) clearly problematic. A browse through the particular CSD log that links to it shows a number of G10s, the one that sticks out to me is Faggots killed in a nightclub shooting!. It's been deleted 5 times (G3, G5, G10, 'abuse' and undefined) and the deletion logs have been revdeleted. Backlinks indicate it's in 3 different CSD logs (in two alongside an attack username, one of which has been suppressed elsewhere). Talk page entries include[16] and [17] (4 deleted entries). In the original CSD log however is some spam advertising prostitution, complete with phone number. I recently redacted some of these[18] from a different log, but it's by no means uncommon. There are similar examples in [19][20] as well as the tech support spammers[21] you might have seen. Then there's things like this. It is up to the developers whether you'd want a blanket prohibition of logging G3 and G10. However I would suggest some way of identifying whether the problem is in the title, or if there's a problematic title, so they can be not logged and not spammed to talk pages. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Alternatively, much like an option exists for not actually notifying the page creator, perhaps an option could be added along the lines of 'exclude title from CSD-logging'? It wouldn't solve every case (not everyone will always remember to click it) but might at least cut down on them. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Could there be an option that reads something like 'title redacted', but still placed in the CSD log? Though now that I think about it, the title also is in the edit summary too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Tooltip icon

In twinkle, tooltip icon which is question mark looks like "?". But all rtl languages use question mark like "؟". So how do we change this icon? Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Sorry if this has been brought up before, can a module be written for reporting IP's/new users that are not getting/ignoring warnings and/or disruptive editing but not considered vandalism. I come across many of these situations. Just a thought. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed technical and availability changes

A proposal with aspects that would affect Twinkle is happening at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right. Those familiar with and who use the tool may want to participate in the discussion if they have not already done so. The relevant portion of the proposal states:

"Twinkle:

With the exception of WP:U1, in the same way that some scripts (e.g. blocking, protection, etc) are visible only to admins, all CSD, AfD, and PROD functions will only be visible to users accorded the New Page Reviewer right."

—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. This would be a significant change to the way less established users are able to use Twinkle, so I would encourage Twinkle users and others with an interest in the gadget to voice their opinion. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Can twinkle detect vandalism by itself?

Hi! I am Peterye2005. I do not know much about Twinkle. I have a question: can Twinkle detect vandalism automatically and let me decide it is vandalism or not? That way, I will not have to go through every edit which I think may be vandalism. Thank you. Peterye2005 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No, Twinkle is, among other things, a tool to easily revert detected vandalism and warn the offender. Automated vandalism detection is done via other methods (abuse filter, cluebot, etc.) You are responsible for every edit made.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Localization of month names in notifs

Moved from MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Twinkle.js

How to localize month names which used for notifying users on their talk pages in twinkleblock.js via date.getUTCMonthName()? Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle enhanced move options

Hello Twinkle devs, anyone up for making some enhanced options for the pagemovers? Perhaps extra move script to automate their round-robin-style page swaps? — xaosflux Talk 00:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

For context, the specific scenario, as discussed here, involves swapping the content, history, (and deleted revisions?) of two pages, both of which have substantial history. If a page mover wanted to swap "A" with "B", the way to do it currently is with 3 suppressredirect moves: move "A" to "C", move "B" to "A", and move "C" to "A" with no trail. The editor using Twinkle would need to have the suppressredirect flag (either be a sysop or extendedmover) for the option to be available. Visually, this might appear in the Twinkle menu as "Swap", which brings up a box that allows you to type the name of the other (existing) page. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This would certainly be a nice feature. Preferably, it would also allow for a custom edit summary, as I would primarily use this when closing an RM, and would like to be able to link to the closed discussion in my edit summary, or link to WP:PM/C#4. Omni Flames (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
+1 for this request, including the prompt for a custom edit summary. — JFG talk 18:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a great idea. It will be a while before I can personally get around to it, but definitely worth our while. I've prevented the bot from archiving this talk thread — MusikAnimal talk 18:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: I've completed a script here (JS) that has been advertised at WP:PMVR, WT:PMVR, and will be featured in the next user script report at Signpost (as of 1 Sep 2016). So far, it's received decent feedback for about a week without complaints for about a week. It has its scope (i.e. not correcting any post-move redirect targets, not making newly redlinked talk pages, etc). Twinkle wouldn't need a change now, unless these redirect/talk/subpage cases are taken care of as well, which may also be out-of-scope and should be taken care of on a case-by-case basis — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Here is a sample of 10 page swaps in about 8 minutes using the script (interspersed with manual redirect corrections, etc) (this set of MOS:CAPS fixes happened to need very minimal cleanup; sometimes it gets a bit more involved with talk/subpages). A thing I noticed: if they happen very close to each other off by 1 or 2 revids, sometimes the moves appear out of order in the contribs — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: Nice! Thanks for taking up the task :) A separate dedicated script I think is the right way to go. This is specific to page movers and there are but 65 of you at the time of writing, so including the script in Twinkle would mean adding an extra 20KB of unusable code for the other ~34,000 Twinkle users. There's the whole "Twinkle extension" concept we've discussed before, but really if you wanted you could just nest a link that runs your script under the TW menu and it's essentially an extension, except maybe a different interface. Best — MusikAnimal talk 20:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

uw-agf-sock

When adding uw-agf-sock, and naming the OTHERUSER, the body of the message correctly links to User:OTHERUSER but the edit summary links to OTHERUSER. Special:Diff/738003595 -- Cabayi (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle's unlink function works well, and it does exactly what it says: remove links, leaving the remaining text as plain unlinked text.

One of the major uses of Unlink, though, is when an article is deleted at AFD. It's fine to just unlink when the link is in the body of the article, but a lot of times it is in the "See also" section. In those cases, a Twinkle unlink leaves behind a line of text that formerly provided the see-also function, but now is out of place. For example, here and here.

I suspect it would not be a simple addition, but would it be possible for Twinkle's unlink function actually delete the line instead of just unlinking when it's in the See also section? TJRC (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Stub deletion nominations

As can be seen at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 16#Template:Nigeria-hist-stub, there is a problem with twinkle posing Stub deletion nominations in the wrong venue,. (They should go to MfD, not TfD). Could this behaviour be changed, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a case of people not reading the instructions. Twinkle contains a clear instruction on the TfD screen that says "Stub types and userboxes are not eligible for TfD. Stub types go to CfD, and userboxes go to MfD." The user has evidently omitted to read this text and select CfD as the venue. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, but this regular occurrence is programmatically detectable and thus fixable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Move Discussion

There is currently a discussion taking place at Template talk:Welcome-COI#Requested move 12 September 2016 which may interest editors here. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional block reason

I find myself lately blocking many IP-'editors' (spambots, likely) whose only 'contributions' are to hit the spam blacklist by trying to add blacklisted external links. I find that quite a job, several things need to be changed, tagging the editor, etc. I would like to have that added in Twinkle if that is possible. Data:

Rest of the settings as typical for IPs.

I asked this as well on github ([22]), but noticed that this may be a faster way .. Thanks!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

We can add this, but not sure about default 1-month duration and revoked talk page access. The IP could be human (and not a spambot), dynamic, and with a history of constructive contributions. I'm not in any way doubting your judgement, but for Twinkle I think we should be more conservative and not suggest 1 month / no talk page is a catch-all standard for this type of disruption — MusikAnimal talk 01:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I should ping you Beetstra. Do you know of any other admins who block under this reason? Your suggested block options make sense if it is indeed their only "contributions", but I wonder how often this is the case, or if we would ever do a {{spamblacklistblock}} if they've made other unrelated and possibly constructive edits — MusikAnimal talk 01:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The IP could be human, but then we would not block first. These are typical spambots, and I've had enough of these blocked with still access to talkpage, where I later have to revoke that access. And that is why I tag their talkpage as well, so there is a way forward for the IP.
There are two other editors who regularly block these IPs .. the IPs are obnoxious .. they make our logs useless, and of none of them I have ever seen constructive edits. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
ths list shows numerous IPs. One that I saw has hundreds, if not thousands of attempted edits. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Okee doke Beetstra,  Done! Looks like the template doesn't properly handle blocking of accounts, though, so I've restricted it to only show in Twinkle when blocking anons. I can probably help you with that if you want, but sounds like it's usually anons that fall under this spamblacklistblock category, so maybe best left as-is — MusikAnimal talk 22:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Feature request: Deleting document pages of templates

This has got to already be a feature, right? ... right? I still think I'm missing something, but if I am, I'll need some help finding it. When you delete a template via Twinkle, by default, document pages/sandboxes/testcases remain behind and there appears to be no option to delete them as well. They almost always need to be deleted with the template, though. Any chance Twinkle could check for pages at Template:TEMPLATENAME/{doc, sandbox, testcases} when deleting a template and get rid of those as well? ~ Rob13Talk 21:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Does that include check for their talk pages too? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, any potential feature should check for talk pages and redirects of the subpages if those boxes are checked. ~ Rob13Talk 00:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Very good point... we can probably make this happen. In what scenario would you not want to delete the doc/sandbox/etc? Should we delete all subpages? Note some templates have "sub-templates" that are transcluded elsewhere.
I'm thinking that after you delete the template, like the unlink tool we'll have a message that reads "To delete subpages: click here to go to the D-batch tool". Clicking the link would bring you to Special:PrefixIndex for the template, and present you with the D-Batch module. This would enforce manual review of what you're about to delete, which I think is important. How does that sound? It's also easier to implement, and won't clutter the current interface with more checkboxes — MusikAnimal talk 03:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: The only case I can think of to not delete a doc page would be if it were transcluded as another template's document page (in which case it should be moved there). For sandboxes, possibly it would be kept if the sandbox was merged elsewhere (for attribution reasons)? So yes, perhaps manual review has some value there, although this is certainly the rare exception rather than the rule. If Twinkle added links next to each entry on Special:PrefixIndex to allow you to easily delete subpages, that would certainly be a major improvement (making sure that those buttons allow you to automatically get rid of redirects and talk pages for the subpages as well). We definitely shouldn't get rid of every single subpage automagically without any review. Imagine if an admin misclicked and deleted Template:Attached KML or something. Or even removing human error from the mix, you might recall the deletions of certain reference schemes where a main template was used to call one of thousands of subpages that contained reference content. Deleting those all at once with a click of one button wouldn't even comply with the bot policy. I'm somewhat indifferent over whether doc/sandbox/testcases pages require manual review, but anything else definitely should need review. ~ Rob13Talk 04:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Alright scratch that, we'll add one more checkbox "Delete doc, sandbox, and testcases". The three combined seems to always be what you want, so we shouldn't need three individual checkboxes. Meanwhile subpages may not even be there much of the time, so we can just include a link saying "This template has subpages: Click here to view them". From there the admin can open the D-Batch if they feel the need. Re: If Twinkle added links next to each entry on Special:PrefixIndex to allow you to easily delete subpages, do you mean so that you can delete subpages of subpages? They should show up there, e.g. Special:PrefixIndex/User:BU Rob13 (your userspace), then click on D-Batch and you can selectively pick which pages to delete, and whether to delete their talk pages and redirects. Just don't accidentally delete all of your userspace! :) This technically may not comply with bot policy either, but it's no different than Special:Nuke — MusikAnimal talk 06:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

May I humbly suggest...

Somewhere near the beginning of this, and the documentation page, include a sentence like, "Twinkle will appear in tab with the letters 'TW' on the top right of the Wikipedia page." Tapered (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Tapered (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a wiki! You can edit it :) But also note the TW dropdown only pertains to the Vector skin. Other skins will see a horizontal layout of links rather than a menu — MusikAnimal talk 03:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I've done thousands of edits. Just ask the people I've insulted! On second thought, don't. Is its initial appearance always a tab? How about "Twinkle's interface is a tab on the upper right of the Wiki page , which may display as a drop-down or horizontal menu." Is that accurate? Tapered (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Not quite. It's a row of tabs in the Monobook skin, for example. You can see for yourself using the preview links at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Murph9000 (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
My concern is that there's no simple description of how to begin using Twinkle on this or the documentation page. Since you're both very familiar with both formats, could you please include something of where to look for the tab and what will follow? It'll help slow folks like myself get started quicker and easier. Regards Tapered (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification opt-out

There should be a notification opt-out subpage that includes AnomieBOT. Twinkle will then hide the "Notify page creator if possible" checkbox in the CSD; XFD; and for articles, PROD dialogs as well as, for files, the "Notify original uploader" checkbox in the DI dialog when the creator is listed for opt-out. For user talk pages that are redirects to other user talk pages, both the redirect and the target usernames should be listed for opt-out if possible. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion logs

I find Twinkle's CSD log immensely useful. Would it be possible to have a similar function to log TfD nominations, please? Perhaps others would find AfD, CfD and MfD logs useful also Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the reason these other logs were not implemented is because technically all AfD/CfD/MfD/TfDs are logged at their venues already, whereas CSD is not logged in the WP namespace anywhere as far as I know. Sounds reasonable though— Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Feature request: AFD log It's current CSD PROD logs are too famous why not we have an AfD log too. Please give consensus VarunFEB2003 11:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Pinging him VarunFEB2003 11:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Please check the archives. This has been discussed time and time again. CSD and PROD logs are there because the page you nominated may end up being deleted, so you lose records of pages you tagged. If you want your AfD stats, try toollabs:afdstats. It offers more information than Twinkle would be able to provide. For the other deletion venues, we might look into porting the AfD stats tool, but in the meantime you could do an edit summary search to locate them — MusikAnimal talk 17:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, but no, I don't want "TfD stats". I want a log, with all the useful features that my CSD log has, and which the tool does not have, such as showing links (and red links where relevant). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding templates

What is the process for adding templates to the warning menu? I have a custom template that I am using at the moment (User:Zackmann08/Thumb-Warning). Ive got it working just fine and am using twinkle to insert it as a custom template. But I'd like to get it added to the "UW" templates and make 4 warning levels for it. What is the best way to make this happen? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Request/Suggestion: Store entered text if error/edit conflict

I've run into this occasionally where I use Twinkle to report something and an error occurs and all the info I entered into the text field is lost. Foe example, I went to make an WP:RPP report and because someone else had already made a request for that page, all the diffs and comment I had in the text field were lost when Twinkle reported to me that a request already existed. I'm asking that there be some way for users to access that text in such cases. I had to go get the diffs and links again when I added to the existent RPP request (see [23]). Thank you. Please ping me in replies/comments. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I second the motion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe this feature exists for XFD already. It really just needs to be extended to other modules, such as PROD, RPP and ARV. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Would be wonderful if it's possible. SPI and RPP too. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Section "Abuse" of the project page

The section "Abuse" of the project page is confusing: I have recently received on my talk page two posts (by different editors) asserting that my reverts were "unfair" or "abusive" because I have used Twinkle for reverting their edits ([24] and [25]). This is certainly due to the present state of this section, which is explicitly referred to by the second post. In fact, a fast reading of this section suggests that almost all reverts are abusive, in particular if there is no edit summary. I'll rewrite this section for a more balanced point of view. D.Lazard (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure anything needs to change. The original paragraph is pretty clear: using Twinkle to revert good-faith edits without leaving an edit summary is an abuse of Twinkle. Your changes, which of course are completely good-faith themselves, kind of dilute that point, and I'm not really sure we want to dilute it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem is the way the section is written suggests to some people that the reverts with Twinkle are "abuse" and "unfair". See above links. What do you propose to make this section in concordance with, say WP:BRD? D.Lazard (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, it seems like it already is. All that paragraph says is that ultimately you, and not the tool, are responsible for your edits, and that you shouldn't use Twinkle to revert a good-faith edit without an edit summary, both of which sre true and don't conflict with BRD at all.
So I don't really know what needs changing; I don't think it makes much sense to rehash BRD in that section. I mean, "creative interpretation" of Wikipedia rules is nothing new, and playing whac-a-mole with policy trying to patch up the holes is not really a fruitful endeavor. Better to avoid scope creep and just keep it simple, imo. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fine as-is, the problem is not the page, but people misinterpreting the page as a policy statement. If we do need to add anything, maybe something like "Unexplained reverts can be seen as an accusation of vandalism, so always WP:FIES with a custom explanation unless dealing with unambiguous vandalism." Murph9000 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_38&oldid=1214722609"