Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
:Same here. The problem appears to affect only main/article namespace pages. --[[User:Dodi 8238|Dodi 8238]] ([[User talk:Dodi 8238|talk]]) 10:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) |
:Same here. The problem appears to affect only main/article namespace pages. --[[User:Dodi 8238|Dodi 8238]] ([[User talk:Dodi 8238|talk]]) 10:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
::I've mainly observed the problem in the file namespace, but I'm less likely to look for the Twinkle menu in other namespaces. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 11:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC) |
::I've mainly observed the problem in the file namespace, but I'm less likely to look for the Twinkle menu in other namespaces. --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 11:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
Are you using the Twinkle gadget or importing a script? What's your browser and skin? |
Revision as of 13:09, 2 October 2015
This page is for general discussion and questions related to Twinkle. It is also one possible venue for reporting bugs and requesting new features; although see Bugs and feature requests below.
Consider also checking Twinkle's documentation, which may answer your question.
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 |
Other archives
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Bugs and feature requests
Bugs and feature requests can be reported at https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle (you will need to have a GitHub account). This will probably result in the issue being noticed sooner, as an e-mail is sent to all Twinkle developers. Alternatively, start a new discussion on this page. Possibly slower service, but you will be able to gain consensus, etc., if you need to.
Go to user talk when reverting pending changes
When a page is reverted with the pending changes "Revert changes" button, Twinkle should give a nice link to go to the user's talk page with the page name pre-filled, like it does when "real" rollback is used. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'll look into this. I only have reviewer rights on testwiki, so I hope our setup is not too different. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Jackmcbarn: Hm, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here. When I clicked "Reject changes" I seemed to get sent back to the article itself. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- A link from the confirmation page, I mean. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Being hopelessly inexperienced with Pending Changes, I will need step-by-step instructions of every click you are making :) — This, that and the other (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- So you want to see a talk page link even before you have made the revert? That seems like a strange order in which to do things. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. I know that's kind of strange, but after the revert is made, there's nowhere to put the talk page link. The other alternative is to make the user's talk page pop open in a new window after the revert, the way that it does when you use Twinkle's own rollback to revert someone. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- So you want to see a talk page link even before you have made the revert? That seems like a strange order in which to do things. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Being hopelessly inexperienced with Pending Changes, I will need step-by-step instructions of every click you are making :) — This, that and the other (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- A link from the confirmation page, I mean. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Jackmcbarn: Hm, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here. When I clicked "Reject changes" I seemed to get sent back to the article itself. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Jackmcbarn: Sorry Jack, I missed your reply. Yes, a popup wouldn't be a bad idea, although I'm hesitant to add another one. I'll see what is possible here and think about the best way to implement it. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to see the vandal's talk page, but I would like this bot to automatically create a talk page for the vandal, if necessary, and post a notice on the vandal's talk page that they did something offensive. In my recent use of this bot, no notice was posted on the vandal's talk page; apparently because there was no existing talk page for the vandal. - Ac44ck (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Stuff
...for lack of a better heading.
- The preferences panel at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences nowhere states that twinkle preferences are actually stored on a wiki page, and are hence public (unlike the mediawiki preferences). A js-savvy user could easily understand what they mean (and even a not-so-savvy user could copy-paste someone else's preferences and then go to the twinkle preferences panel). Also, the page doesn't mention that the prefs will be released under the default wikipedia license. (Not sure if there's a copyright/privacy violation in there anywhere, but you might want to look into this.)
- Someone might want to take a look at this commit I did downstream back in 2012. It includes a function to softcode namespace names in regex creation for the unlink tool in morebits.js. Devs may want to properly implement that upstream. The benefit would be that the regex would work on any wikipedia without problem.
- There's a script at hi:User:Siddhartha Ghai/twinkle.js which loads for me a personal version of twinkle from various user subpages. The only difference from the gadget version is that the header and footer have been kept separate. Devs might want to consider separating them again since using this script, changes in one module can be tested easily with the other live modules (i.e copy one module to your userspace, make some changes, use hi:User:Siddhartha Ghai/twinkle.js to load the default gadget, only replacing the changed module with the userspace subpage instead of the mediawiki page) and you can test the changes live!
- Over the past 1.5 months I've done a lot of updates to the gadget at hi.wp (stuff dating from May 2012 to October 2013). I'm just giving a heads up since I may have to take a long wikibreak and if the gadget breaks there, someone might complain here. Anything that was implemented after mid-October hasn't been implemented there (including the mediawiki js deprecations removal)
- Oh, and it seems that Jimbo uses Twinkle too, in case any of the devs ever want to do an April Fool's prank for users in the founder group ;) --Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, even Jimbo Wales uses Twinkle? Man, this is just reason enough to get all autoconfirmed users in good standing to get Twinkle, even if they're not planning on using it often. It's just an awesome tool. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 21:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm considering adding a line to the top of the preferences panel saying "Note that your preferences will be released publicly as JavaScript code in a subpage of your user page." Thoughts? Eman235/talk 06:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you really want to do it, perhaps something less technical would be better: "Note that your preferences are stored in (a subpage of your user page). Only you (and Wikipedia administrators) can modify your preferences, but the settings you choose are visible to everyone." — This, that and the other (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
And now the {{-}} is boggling me. If this note is going to be put in I don't think I can do it.Eman235/talk 00:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)- *slaps self* never mind, figured it out. I made a slight change to the wording mention that it is JavaScript, not blatant text -- dunno what you think of that -- but yes, item one in this list is amended, kind of. Eman235/talk 00:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you really want to do it, perhaps something less technical would be better: "Note that your preferences are stored in (a subpage of your user page). Only you (and Wikipedia administrators) can modify your preferences, but the settings you choose are visible to everyone." — This, that and the other (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm considering adding a line to the top of the preferences panel saying "Note that your preferences will be released publicly as JavaScript code in a subpage of your user page." Thoughts? Eman235/talk 06:01, 1 September 2014 (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)
Adding new suspected sockpuppets to open investigation
SPI clerk @Vanjagenije: was saying it's incorrect for Twinkle to add a new section to an SPI case for each new suspected sockpuppet, as @Andy Dingley: did here and here. Instead they should go under the same date header, as shown here.
I don't see any documentation on this, but if you go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and type in the name of a suspected sockmaster with a case open, it does the same thing as Twinkle, that is, creates a news section that repeats the date of the section header above rather than grouping them under the same header. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a specific question? Should Twinkle's behaviour be altered? I personally never use the SPI module so can't comment on its suitability for purpose, but I am happy to change it if SPI procedures have evolved over the years. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was hoping to ping the SPI clerk @Vanjagenije: so they would come and explain the problem, because they twice asserted that the case additions were wrong, even after I pointed out that this is TW behavior. It appears consistent to me, but maybe Vanjagenije knows something I don't. If not, then there's nothing to see here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think the point is more than when there is an open case, you should mention/add the new suspected socks to that case and not use Twinkle to file a new one... it'd probably require a lot more work but theoretically Twinkle could probably be tweaked to do that (or maybe just give a warning if there exists an open case). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: I don't really see the problem here. Twinkle is just a tool made to help users. That doesn't mean that the Twinkle is always right. If the case is already open, simply don't use Twininkle, but add new suspects manually. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Once again, if you go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and put in the name of an existing sockmaster, you will get the same behavior as Twinkle. I guess you can try sending a personal message to each and every editor who adds a sock report and hope they all remember to follow this undocumented workaround, but it doesn't sound fun to me. You might find yourself banging your head on something after nagging the 1,000th newbie not to use Twinkle OR the SPI page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Salvidrim!, Vanjagenije, Sorry to be late to the party on this discussion, but I think there's more to this than just whether there's an open case. Two examples off the top of my head...
- Suppose that the SPI clerk has endorsed a CU on the suspected puppets. Aren't you inviting the user who spots more suspects to effectively self-endorse a CU on their additional suspects?
- If a case has progressed to the point of the clerk recommending an admin action, and the case is open pending that action, do you really want new supects being added to that open case? Especially if the action is loosly worded as "Block all socks"?
- Having made mistakes with my first couple of SPI cases (leaving an indented reply to a clerk's comment *gasp!*) I'm aware that SPI has more complexities than a casual user could be expected to know. Because of that I'd have to say that the clerk is the person best placed to judge whether the cases should be merged, not the reporting user, certainly not Twinkle. Bazj (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Bazj: I never said that you should add more suspects to the case when the CU is already endorsed/declined or when the admin action is requested by the clerk. I said that you should add new suspects to the previous case when the previous case is classified as "open" (i.e. the {{SPI case status}} parameter is set to "open", or not set at all, which is the same). Vanjagenije (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Vanjagenije, Thanks for clarifying. Bazj (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Bazj: I never said that you should add more suspects to the case when the CU is already endorsed/declined or when the admin action is requested by the clerk. I said that you should add new suspects to the previous case when the previous case is classified as "open" (i.e. the {{SPI case status}} parameter is set to "open", or not set at all, which is the same). Vanjagenije (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: I don't really see the problem here. Twinkle is just a tool made to help users. That doesn't mean that the Twinkle is always right. If the case is already open, simply don't use Twininkle, but add new suspects manually. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think the point is more than when there is an open case, you should mention/add the new suspected socks to that case and not use Twinkle to file a new one... it'd probably require a lot more work but theoretically Twinkle could probably be tweaked to do that (or maybe just give a warning if there exists an open case). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was hoping to ping the SPI clerk @Vanjagenije: so they would come and explain the problem, because they twice asserted that the case additions were wrong, even after I pointed out that this is TW behavior. It appears consistent to me, but maybe Vanjagenije knows something I don't. If not, then there's nothing to see here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
token?
I sometimes get the error message: "Tagging article: Failed to save edit: Invalid token". What token is invalid and is there anything I can do about it? RJFJR (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- @RJFJR: (I'm not a Twinkle developer!) The token is, I'm guessing, an edit token, used to validate actions. I get that occasionally while using semi-automated tools, most noticeably Twinkle and Huggle. It's not too much of a big deal, just re-save your edit, although I personally would like to know if this could possibly be fixed as well (It is annoying, especially if you typed in an edit summary). --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 20:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism rollback not warning editors
Today when I use Twinkle to rollback vandalism, it pops up a window to edit the editor's talkpage but doesn't actually add anything to it. I thought it used to automatically add a warning? I haven't used this feature for a month or so, so I can't really say when it started. GoldenRing (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: No, Twinkle opens the editor's talkpage for you but then it is up to you to choose what message to add there. Twinkle's "Warn" dialog makes this fairly easy. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. My mis-remembering. Thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, with the Safari Browser on a mac, the user's talkpage doesn't even open and never has for me... Montanabw(talk) 03:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: You may have to allow en.wikipedia.org as an exception to whatever popup blocker you are using. I have that exception listed, and I think I did that to make Twinkle work. I'm using Firefox under Windows, so I can't offer specific help. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Depends exactly what you do, e.g. if you revert in one action a string of edits by different editors, Twinkle does not open a talk page for any of them: Noyster (talk), 09:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, with the Safari Browser on a mac, the user's talkpage doesn't even open and never has for me... Montanabw(talk) 03:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Can't find twinkle in my gadgets page
Hi, I'm trying to install twinkle on my account, but cannot find it in my gadgets section. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks, Bluestar337 (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Bluestar337
- @Bluestar337: It should appear once your account is autoconfirmed; that is, once you've made ten edits with the account and been registered for four days. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Bluestar337 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Bluestar337
New template addition
Hi, can Template:Uw-paid1, Template:Uw-paid2, Template:Uw-paid3, and Template:Uw-paid4 be added to Twinkle. These were recently created due to the Orangemoody case and are definetly handy. Thanks Tortle (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am almost certain these would work better as a single-issue notice and/or warning... — This, that and the other (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Concurring: I believe that this should be a single issue warning..--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be a bit bitey to treat a newbie editor who updates something minor about their employer the same as an obvious OrangeMoody-type sock who blatantly violates various policies and guidelines here. Instead, I would suggest keeping the tiered system, with a level 4 warning that can be immediately applied for blatant violators, while the lower level warnings would be more of an attempt to educate and obtain voluntary compliance, without driving away someone who made an honest mistake. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 20:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's not going to be much occasion to use the lower level warnings, in particular I cannot think of circumstances where level 1 would be appropriate., Myself, I'll be using them at level 4, but I;d prefer we did a 4im, because that's even better. st we do both a 4 and a 4im. Next step is to add it as a block reason. DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- While editors are required to declare any payment, I know of no policy requiring a negative affirmation in response to a other editor's - quite possibly unfounded - suspicion. There is also a troubling disparity between the names of the templates ("Paid") and their content ("Advocacy"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hoax option disappears
Dear Twinkle developers: Today I found a page that was a hoax created by copying a web page and changing the name of a famous person to another name and then pasting the result into a draft. I selected "Tag don't delete", and then "Tag with multiple criteria", intending to select both Hoax and Copyio. However, as soon as I picked the multiple criteria, the "G3 Blatant Hoax" option disappeared from the list. I presume that this is a bug, so I am reporting it, —Anne Delong (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have replicated the same issue. PLease fix. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't a bug. The "hoax" deletion rationale shares G3 with the "general vandalism" rationale. As with the other cases where individual speedy deletion criteria are broken out by subtype (A7, G6, G8, G10), the subtypes are all rolled up back into their single associated criterion when the "tag with multiple criteria" box is checked. This is because the {{db-multi}} template takes criteria identifiers (e.g., "a7", "g3") as arguments. We lose the distinction offered by, say, {{db-vandalism}} and {{db-hoax}}. The bottom line is that if you want to tag an article as both G3 and G12, you can. You just can't distinguish between G3-vandal and G3-hoax. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Largo Plazo is correct; it's not a bug in Twinkle, but instead it was coded into Twinkle very intentionally. If you wish to see change here, you will need to address it at the template level (namely, Template talk:db-multiple). — This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Custom templates
Is there anyway to add custom templates with the additional parameters? I added {{Uw-castesanction}}
to my custom warnings, but it requires a couple of parameters that the standard option in Twinkle doesn't address. Is there anyway I could do this using Twinkle? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
SineBot gets in the way of rolling back vandalism
Have you considered adding a Twinkle function that rolls back SineBot plus the previous edit? SineBot makes it more difficult to revert vandalism and such-like, since both "rollback" and "undo" merely revert the bot, not the vandalism or block evasion or whatever. Look at my revert here for instance: in order to revert the sock, I had to make a null edit to the antepenultimate page version by Bbb23, then save. It's annoying, but I can't think of a simpler way. (Is there one?) Bishonen | talk 18:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC).
- I support this! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Bishonen and Largoplazo: Tested this in SineBot's sandbox. If I use AGF rollback, Twinkle will refuse to roll it back. If I choose "normal" Twinkle rollback, I get a popup asking, "Normal revert was chosen, but the most recent edit was made by a whitelisted bot (SineBot). Do you want to revert the revision before instead?" Clicking "yes" or "OK" reverts both SineBot's edit and the edit before, with the edit summary only mentioning the author of the edit before SineBot's. If I choose vandal rollback, it gives the message "Info: Vandalism revert was chosen on SineBot. As this is a whitelisted bot, we assume you wanted to revert vandalism made by the previous user instead." and then proceeds the same as with clicking normal rollback followed by OK. Thus, Twinkle's normal and vandal rollbacks can be used to bypass SineBot and roll back the previous user as well. (And then after all of those intentional unsigned comments, I forget to sign this comment...) jcgoble3 (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I find Twinkle generally very user friendly, but the rollback has always been an exception. In histories, there's only one rollback link. In diffs, there's "rollback (AGF)", "rollback", and "rollback (VANDAL)". I suppose the first and third are Twinkle things, since when someone looks who doesn't have Twinkle, such as Bishzilla, she only sees the "rollback" link? (But what is "normal" Twinkle rollback?) It would help if it said "Twinkle rollback" somewhere, or if it was present amongst the usual Twinkle links at the top of the page. Anyway, basically, you're saying that when SineBot has made the last edit on a page, I'm to click "rollback (VANDAL)" on that edit and then I get a choice of what to do? The trouble is I'm kind of scared to try that live, and I can't get the SineBot sandbox to sign my posts. :-( I made a post there 15 minutes ago, and it still hasn't been signed. :-( The sandbox instructions say "This page is listed in SineBot's high priority list, so your comments will be be very quickly signed as opposed to the bot waiting a delay before signing them." Yeah… so presumably I'm doing something wrong, because I can see the bot signed your posts quickly, Jcgoble3. This is getting sort of frustrating. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC).
- @Bishonen and Largoplazo: Tested this in SineBot's sandbox. If I use AGF rollback, Twinkle will refuse to roll it back. If I choose "normal" Twinkle rollback, I get a popup asking, "Normal revert was chosen, but the most recent edit was made by a whitelisted bot (SineBot). Do you want to revert the revision before instead?" Clicking "yes" or "OK" reverts both SineBot's edit and the edit before, with the edit summary only mentioning the author of the edit before SineBot's. If I choose vandal rollback, it gives the message "Info: Vandalism revert was chosen on SineBot. As this is a whitelisted bot, we assume you wanted to revert vandalism made by the previous user instead." and then proceeds the same as with clicking normal rollback followed by OK. Thus, Twinkle's normal and vandal rollbacks can be used to bypass SineBot and roll back the previous user as well. (And then after all of those intentional unsigned comments, I forget to sign this comment...) jcgoble3 (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Rollback_and_Twinkle_diff.png/220px-Rollback_and_Twinkle_diff.png)
- @Bishonen: A couple things: First, all three rollback links across the top of the diff are Twinkle's; the center one that just says "rollback" in light blue is what I referred to as "normal" Twinkle rollback. (There is also the "native" MediaWiki rollback, which is only seen with admin or rollback rights and appears on diffs to the right of the user links in the normal link color. Admins and rollbackers with Twinkle enabled will see both the MediaWiki rollback and Twinkle's rollback options on diffs, while only MediaWiki rollback appears on page histories.) As for SineBot, the bot didn't sign your posts because by default it only signs for users with under 800 edits. You need to opt back in via the instructions at User:SineBot#Opting_back_in_for_experienced_editors, as I have done, before the bot will sign your posts for you. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Twinkle issue again on WP:RFPP
Twinkle is once again posting unprotection requests in the "protected page edit request" section. See here and there. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I finally got annoyed enough with the constant reports of this problem to look at the code for myself. It turned out to be an easy fix (though I'm still not sure how the fix works), so here's a pull request. :) jcgoble3 (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
New paid editing warnings
Could somebody add these new warnings to twinkle? {{uw-paid1}}, {{uw-paid2}}, {{uw-paid3}}, {{uw-paid4}} Thanks SmartSE (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Smartse, please see the discussion above at the section "New template addition". Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Reverted continuum
Hello,
ok thing one is ok, i hadn't know. but two is not ok the source is the german wikipedia side, and on this are both things with source.(ref 11 and 12).
Greetings Niki
- Replied at User talk:79.235.163.56. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Oi!
Why isn't Twinkle appearing at the top of articles? All I'm getting is "project page", "talk", "edit this page", "+", "*" and "page".--Launchballer 10:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Launchballer, I don't see a twinkleoptions.js in your pages. Have you checked the Twinkle setting in your gadgets? Bazj (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Section redirects
When a redirect to a section is nominated for RfD, the daily log page should show the target section instead of just the underlying page of the section. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Not in gadgets anymore
Please update installation as its no longer in gadgets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigsofrods (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Rigsofrods: You need to be autoconfirmed to use Twinkle, thus it will not appear on your Gadgets tab until you reach the required threshold (4 days and 10 edits; you currently have 5 edits as of the time this is being typed). jcgoble3 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
New tag
Can somebody add {{Histmerge}} to Twinkle, possibly under the merge section of the tags? Thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 13:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed the notification on the top, I've filed a ticket on GitHub. Kharkiv07 (T) 17:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Marking page as Patrolled or not when using WP:PROD
Hi, Twinkle automatically mark article as patrolled when tagged with CSD while when using WP:PROD (with Twinkle) on any unpatrolled article, the article doesn't automatically gets patrolled. So, should an editor "mark it as patrolled" manually or leave it. What is the standard procedure in these cases ? Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Twinkle not working on a lot of pages
Since yesterday (1 October), Twinkle stopped working on a lot of pages on my watch list. An example is Siachen conflict. I don't get a Twinkle tab in the menubar and the rollback/welcome buttons for diffs are gone as well. Is anybody else having such problems? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've had this problem for a couple of weeks (and other scripts have been failing too, for example Visual File Change on Commons). --Stefan2 (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Same here. The problem appears to affect only main/article namespace pages. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you using the Twinkle gadget or importing a script? What's your browser and skin?