|This user is new to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite while they become accustomed to Wikipedia and its intricacies.|
A kitten for you!
Cute or what?
Thanks for coming along!
Hi, Just want to say a big thank you for all your help at the YMT Luminaries edit-a-thon. You can read a report of the event here. Tweaks are welcome and you can comment on the talk page. Cheers! PatHadley (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Special Barnstar|
|For the brilliant observation of the difference between 'notable' and 'noted' with ref to Wikipedia's fundamental critieria of notability, which opens doors to major change for underrepresented groups on Wikipedia. BessieMaelstrom (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)|
'Request an article' wizard
Hi GitM, I've been looking at your TalkHelper2 script. I've been wanting to adapt it toa a specific use case but I've zero js skills. Here's the usecase: On a mediawiki page like this one, the corresponding wikidata item will list some people as having specific roles (author, editor, peer reviewer), and some of those people will have their wikimedia username listed on their wikidata item.
Ideally, I'd love to colour comments on the talkpages based on on who they were left by. Bascially, where the script uses:
$('.talkHelper' + when + ':contains(' + wgUserName + ')').addClass('talkHelperMe');
- Evolution and evolvability Thanks for contacting me — it is always gratifying to know that others do notice my user scripts.
The TalkHelper script identifies Wikipedia Talk page posts by finding the timestamp that is always added at the end of a talk post in Wikipedia. In the case of the Wikiversity Talk page, there are no timestamps and also no user signatures in the Wikipedia sense, so TalkHelper, as it currently exists, has nothing to work with. This makes it a rather different process to identify the users involved and "brand" the various page components accordingly.
The author (Mario Rizzetto) is referenced only once and is identified in the
Article infotemplate on the main page. The display of the author name could easily be changed by altering the template itself – by adding suitable styling if everybody should see the highlighting or by adding a class so that a user script can add the styling for only you.
How do we connect a review to a specific user or class of user? Looking at the article history — the first review was added by you on 5 December 2019 and the template does not reference a specific user. The second was added by you as well, but is attributed to William L Irving, which matches the second "reviewed by" entry in Wikidata. The "Third peer review" also has an "anonymous peer reviewer", but the history shows that you added the review. One way forward might be for you to create some form of mock-up of how you think the pages could look (and which components take the additional colours) and what connects the post to a user. Another route might be to enhance the
reviewtemplate so that extra parameters can indicate the role of the reviewing user or perhaps more directly the class of "branding" to use when displaying the review. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the detailed info! You're right that currently all the edits are bgin made by hand (via people submitting to this form that we then copy across). This is because most of the contributors (especially reviewers) have zero editing experience so kept messing up posting talkpage comments. The main problem with the v:template:review and v:template:response templates is that the syntax is easy to break when they get highly nested. Now that the [reply] fuction is running, we're hoping to transition back to normal talkpage comments, so would go back to standard signatures! Here's a crude mockup with blue white and grey indicating the three roles.
- I've also been experimenting with this css templatestyle. (sandbox) but that has a couple of glaring limiations:
- It can only alternate colours, rather than spotting different posting users.
- I can't seem to colour the non-indented comments.
- For some reason it seems to only show the formatting for me when I'm logged out, but I can't find any script I have installed over there that'd be over-riding it!
- Any thoughts? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Randomly from User:CeaselessTeapot 22:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
Short descriptions that are too short to be useful
I won't argue with that particular reversion but FYI I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Short description#But what about wp:think of the reader?. You may wish to contribute your views. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.