User talk:Tacsipacsi

Create a new page
Excuse me I want to learn If I want to make new page What should I do? I am sorry becouse I can't speak english very well.
 * Just search for it, and you see a red link above the search results. You can also ask for help in Turkish (if it’s your native language), try [//www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?search=User%3Atr-N&fulltext=1 search for native speakers on mediawiki.org]. I hope I helped. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Preparing for translation
Re, a few notes: Nemo 14:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * no need to add the unit markers (the numbers) manually (you made some mistakes and 60, 61, 62, 130 are used more than once);
 * the list in the section "== Notes ==" (and Uninstalling) should not be a single translation unit, these are many sentences;
 * I'm not sure what to think of all the untranslatable strings in the units (those in "code" tags), I guess it's overkill to use tvar for each of them.
 * I see you are translation admin on Commons. If you fix what listed above and you are interested in converting more pages here, I'll flag you here too. Then it's easier to spot problems on your own, with the page marking interface. Nemo 14:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer to “say” what I want—I don’t like when a program tries to figure out what I wanted, it’s easier and more precise to tell it explicitly. I also thought that if I mark the same content with the same number, it has to be translated only once—it works for references but, as I can see, it doesn’t work for translation units. (What other mistakes are there?)
 * Okay, I will split them (along with the other fixes).
 * I thought it’s easier for the translator, and can be more simply changed by the developer.
 * I think I wouldn’t use the flag, so no thanks.
 * Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding unit markers manually is just wrong, don't do it. Ok on the rest. Nemo 20:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Now I tested it in my own wiki so it should work. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Now I tested it in my own wiki so it should work. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I prepared Extension for translation. The text is on my computer, because if I put the translation tags into the template, all transclusions will fail. (Maybe if I create Extension/en before saving the main template, it’ll be OK.) So I do it only if you say you can mark it for translation. (It’s somehow part of the previous, because this makes possible to translate the infobox too.) --Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, that's an ambitious page to mark. Yes, please copy the current text to /en before preparing the page. Then I *think* adding the translate tags will not break anything, although we can't be sure because many pages may still transclude the template directly. Nemo 21:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I found Extension status while correcting transclusions (there are now fewer than 700 pages without translated subpages). Can you mark it for translation? (Maybe I need the translation admin right at least temporarily indeed…) Thanks, --Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I’ve changed all templates, except the userspace. Shall I change user pages too? --Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

CategoryTree
Can you help with the problem of the not shown collapse/expand/empty bullets in the extension? is there any posibility to change the "symbols" to images? at the moment the toggle works once, after toggle back the image-tag or the code is shown instead of the picture. Reload the page will bring the piucture/image back?!? https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Usylqmndfj3q2ijw thanks a lot ... Gerd 10:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding integration of voting feature in 'Extension:StructuredDiscussion'.
I wanted to know if there is any simple way in which a voting feature can be added to 'Extension:StructuredDiscussion' ...

One way can be to somehow integrate 'Extension:VoteNY' with 'Extension:StructuredDiscussion'. Is this possible ?

(I dont want the replies to move up and down like reddit..I just want to add a functionality so that user can vote replies given by other users)

please guide me. --Falcopragati (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey. Thanks for fixing the module! Minorax (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You’re welcome, but I would be happier if there was nothing to fix. :) I still don’t understand why this import was needed to begin with, could you please give me a clue? I think these basic templates are usually at least as much up-to-date as on Meta, but in this particular case the documentation module was even more up-to-date here. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wanted to import the Noping template and I checked the import all templates box. To be honest, I didn't even expect the Lua error to appear. Minorax (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t expect it to overwrite templates either, but now that you know that it does, please be more careful next time, and please use the comment field if you didn’t use it this time. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeap. Thanks for helping :) Minorax (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Wikimedia_engineering_project_information has no linebreaks anymore
Hi, it looks like https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Wikimedia_engineering_project_information&type=revision&diff=3994555&oldid=3875307&diffmode=source somehow destroyed the styling and also removed all and any line breaks for fields. See e.g. the box on Wikimedia_Quality_and_Test_Engineering_Team. Any idea how to fix this? :-/ Thanks! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I was too late, Majavah already fixed it. Thank you, Majavah! (Unfortunately translated pages are quite hard to test, and I haven’t thought that someone would place the  tag in the   section…) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

[WMF Board of Trustees - Call for feedback: Community Board seats] Meetings with MediaWiki and Wikitech communities
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is organizing a call for feedback about community selection processes between February 1 and March 14. While the Wikimedia Foundation and the movement have grown about five times in the past ten years, the Board’s structure and processes have remained basically the same. As the Board is designed today, we have a problem of capacity, performance, and lack of representation of the movement’s diversity. Our current processes to select individual volunteer and affiliate seats have some limitations. Direct elections tend to favor candidates from the leading language communities, regardless of how relevant their skills and experience might be in serving as a Board member, or contributing to the ability of the Board to perform its specific responsibilities. It is also a fact that the current processes have favored volunteers from North America and Western Europe. In the upcoming months, we need to renew three community seats and appoint three more community members in the new seats. This call for feedback is to see what processes can we all collaboratively design to promote and choose candidates that represent our movement and are prepared with the experience, skills, and insight to perform as trustees?

In this regard, two rounds of feedback meetings are being hosted to collect feedback from the technical communities in Wikimedia. Two rounds are being hosted with the same agenda, to accomodate people from various time zones across the globe. We will be discussing ideas proposed by the Board and the community to address the above mentioned problems. Please sign-up according to whatever is most comfortable to you. You are welcome to participate in both as well!


 * Round 1 - Feb 25, 4:00 pm UTC
 * Round 2 - Mar 4, 4:00 am UTC
 * Sign-up and meeting details: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees/Call for feedback: Community Board seats/Conversations/MediaWiki and Wikitech

Also, please share this with other volunteers who might be interested in this. Let me know if you have any questions. KCVelaga (WMF), 14:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Template:Uses TemplateStyles?diff=4683098
The invocation was actually correct, because the  is part of the outer  instead of the inner s, which uses the  syntax, which tests for numeric boolean truthy&#x2011;ness. — ExE Boss 07:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Almost correct. Okay, I got lost in the curly braces (using the parameters of yesno, i.e.  → , would’ve made it more readable, just like inserting an—HTML comment-escaped—line break before the opening   would’ve), but there are still edge cases where the two are different:  is valid for the module (see on the right), but your categorization skipped it, as the first unnamed parameter is blank;  returns  , while   returns false . The latter is rather an inconsistency between the template and the module than a bug in your code, but it still means that the categorization used different rules than the actual display. (By the way, your talk page message’s source code is also unreadable. There’s nothing wrong in web text wrapping on whichever word boundaries, but wikitext full of  ’s makes it practically impossible to read diffs.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)