User talk:HappyDog/Nasty

Hey!
Hey man, there's no need to keep telling me how to edit a wiki: Default value is an array, but an array of false values or true? I suspect the former. Either way, the documentation could perhaps be improved. --Kingboyk 18:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The standard method is to hit the 'edit' button, make the improvement, click save. --HappyDog 00:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious from the above that I don't know the answer and am highlighting it for somebody who does to improve it? (Or for me myself to improve it when I've acquired the knowledge? :)) --Kingboyk 11:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You made several posts such as this, which to be honest are not very constructive. They imply that someone out there knows all the answers and just hasn't bothered to write them up properly. Unfortunately, the few people who do know all the answers are not likely to respond here as they are busy making MediaWiki better, so it's up to the rest of us to fill in the gaps.
 * To answer your question, someone needs to do the research. Presumably, having not found the answer here you went on to look at other sources of help and eventually managed to get an answer and solve whatever problem you were stuck on, therefore you have already done this research and are in the best position to add the information.
 * Unfortunately, it is all too rare that people return to fill in the gaps once they have found the answer elsewhere.
 * I'm sorry if you found my response harsh, but we are all too aware that 'the documentation could perhaps be improved' and having it pointed out to us is not going to get as good a response as, say, improving it. --HappyDog 15:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "They imply that someone out there knows all the answers and just hasn't bothered to write them up properly". Of course! Mediawiki is written by some brilliantly clever people but is (as is often the case when it comes to brilliant programmers) terribly documented. Somebody out there does know these things and hasn't written them up; not necessarily because they can't be bothered, perhaps because they don't realise us lesser mortals wouldn't understand.
 * Or perhaps because they are busy working on the code. Not everything needs to be documented by the developers.  For example, the answer to your question above is available by clicking a link that is on the page! --HappyDog 16:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's roles for all sorts of people on a wiki. Not everyone can contribute material, but they can point out deficiencies for other folk to fix or for themselves to fix when they've found an answer. I'll be doing that but I'm still getting my head back round PHP having been working with VB.NET for the last few months (see w:User:Kingbotk/Plugin). If you think that comments pointing out deficiencies aren't constructive we'll have to agree to differ I'm afraid. What's the alternative? I spot a gap in the docs and just keep my mouth shut because I don't know the answer?! I don't think so! --Kingboyk 15:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK - I agree with you, up to a point. So long as there are more people adding useful content than there are pointing out the omissions then we're OK (although I'm not sure whether that is the case yet...) --HappyDog 16:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete redirects
Please don't delete redirects; it leaves broken links on local sites, foreign sites, documentation, source code comments, etc. I've restored a bunch you deleted on December 12. --Brion VIBBER 22:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish you had mentioned this beforehand! There was a bold red notice on the front page for two weeks, plus messages on various forum/portal pages indicating that these pages would be deleted after a fortnight, including details about where and how to lodge any objections.  That was about 45 minutes of my life wasted - are there really that many external links to these pages, particularly given the brief length of time some of them have been in existence for?  The main namespace is just becoming a mess.
 * Sorry Brion - I don't mean to rant so much, when most of what you do is so brilliant, but I can't believe that you didn't see the notices (though checking your contributions, you may only have been to the site once during that time...). Anyway &lt;/rant&gt;.  --HappyDog 02:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

bugs
I am VERY unhappy with the treatment of bug reporting. I take this VERY personal. I am VERY willing to help. But this is developper arrogance to simply delete it. I was among the 85 main contributors in en:WP - but I left there, because of repeated policy violations and arrogance by the Sysops. I hoped here it is different. On what basis Bugs gets simply deleted away? And even if there is a basis ... it's VERY bad to delete these useful contributions. Tobias Conradi 14:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tobias. Please don't take things personally.  I'm not the person who deleted that page, but I understand the reasoning.  It is important that Bugzilla is used for all bug reports, otherwise there is absolutely no way to keep track of them.  When 1.3 was released there was a page on meta used to log bugs and discuss changes (see MediaWiki_1.3_comments_and_bug_reports/Archive).  As you can see it was pretty unusable and ultimately ignored by developers because it took far too much of their time to even figure out what was a 'bug', what was a 'feature request', what was 'vague opinion' and what was just junk.  It is not arrogance - it is the only sane way to keep track of a product used by millions of people world-wide.
 * The bottom line is that if you want a developer to see your bugs, let alone act on them, they need to be entered into Bugzilla. The Bugs page was deleted because its presence gives a false sense of security that a bug has been 'reported'.  Unless someone (you?) wants to take responsibility for adding all entries on that page into Bugzilla then it is a waste of time. --HappyDog 17:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks for you replying. It were my contributions that were deleted away, it's like putting tape on my mouth. That's why I took it personal. ;-) I added If you report bugs here, developpers may never see them! to the page. I do not see how my contribs are waste of time. They are only so, if the get deleted right away. The contribs can actually save time to some people. Because they are warned before installation about some bugs. Additionally someone might enter the bugs. I am unwilling to report bugs on bugzilla, because do not want to reveal my emailadress. Tobias Conradi 20:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Try gmail.google.com. To be honest, if you don't want to report a bug then you don't have to report a bug.  However, if you do want to report one there seems little sense just shouting it into the void.  I have updated the page to give a lot more info and background about how to use Bugzilla and why it should be used.  --HappyDog 01:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * have gmail, thanks :-). Little sense - maybe it is limited to write it there, I agree. Tobias Conradi 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

false claims, mark reverts as minor
why do you make false claims and mark reverts as minor?

http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Bugs&diff=67747&oldid=67741

Tobias Conradi 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverts are normally minor - I marked this one out of habit, sorry. Please explain what 'false claims' I have made.  Also, please re-read Bugzilla carefully before continuing this conversation.  --HappyDog 00:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * your IMO false claim "Revert - this is a redirect to Bugzilla, which clearly explains why bugs should not be reported on wiki!" - this is IMO wrong. Maybe you should re-read Bugzilla. I did so. Can we not have the bug page and yes let's mark it in BIG letters that devs will not read them. And put in big letters that it would be nice to report them. But IMO MW needs the input. The permalink bug is very old - I always used classic skin in WP and never had this Permalink. Putting more workload on me in discussions in WP when trying to quote. IIRC I also reported a bug more than a year ago here, and then had some talk with a dev and I at the end provided a patch. He put it in SVN/CVS so no contrib for me - but just want to tell that I think this wiki input can be good. Maybe stuff there can accumulate and then once in a year one can check whats up, whats right, whats wrong. Of course we should make sure that overall the page is more good than harm. best regards Tobias Conradi 00:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So are you volunteering to actively maintain an up-to-date list of 'current issues in MediaWiki'? --HappyDog 13:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've suggested Bug reports as a title for such a page, and tried to explain some stuff ( in German *g*). Hope this helps a bit. -- :Bdk: 00:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter Blaise responds:
 * I also vote for keeping all histories and links rather than deleting or reverting, and at most, also moving and linking any discussion-type contributions to appropriate discussion pages, rather than merely deleting them.
 * I think the goal at MediaWiki.org is NOT a clean but empty site, but a site where visitors can quickly find what we are looking for. It hardly matters to me how "messy" and redundant the site is if the computer does the searching for me and quickly brings up answers that are responsive to my search terms.  For me, that may require following a thread of links that lead to the answer.  Without those links intact, I'd never find the answers I do find.  So, I vote for more information, more redundancy, more links, more disambiguation pages, not less (not fewer?).
 * Remember, organization in one person's mind, especially a deeply experienced person, may not be what the novice needs. Suggesting at the Bugzilla page here that:
 * "...All bugs in the MediaWiki software should be reported at bugzilla.wikimedia.org..."
 * is naive - how does a newbie know what is the resolution to their problem until AFTER it's solved? Is it a bug, or is it just me?  When it's resolved, LEAVE it intact as a thread, AND link it to a relevant Bugzilla post.  Note that on the Bugzilla page on this site, there's the final line:
 * "... if you want a developer to act on it then you need to put it somewhere they are likely to see it, namely Bugzilla ..."
 * WITH NO LINK on the word "... Bugzilla ..."! I'm sure that if I touch that page and make the reference into a LINK, then someone will revert it back to kill the link, and claim that because they do not feel they need the link, that my offering to help newbies was a waste of energy.
 * Anyone's contributions here are a waste of time only if someone ERASES them! Argh!
 * Peter Blaise peterblaise 17:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, Peter, try not to be so incendiary. Why would anyone revert the addition of a sensible link?  If you have valid contributions to a page, then please add them.  If you have questions about a page, please add them to the appropriate talk page (NOT to the page itself).  If you have questions about the site, go to the Forum and ask them there.  But please don't use every available space as a sounding board for your personal agenda.  Bugzilla says that bugs should be reported at Bugzilla, because bugs should be reported at Bugzilla.  If they are not then developers will not see them and they will not be fixed - simple as that.  You will not persuade the developers to come and check the wiki as well, particularly as wiki is such an inferior method for dealing with bugs.  --HappyDog 17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter Blaise responds:
 * Thanks, chief! Incendiary?  These are words, sharing ideas; no one's trying to arouse strife, sedition.  I understand that your literary reference is not literal, but how else can we discuss things if we do not, well, discuss them?  Silly me, but I imagine a discussion requires each person perhaps, possibly, saying something different than the last person said.  If the next reader responds to the differences in those new words as if it's incendiary, me thinks it's the reader, not the writer.
 * Anyway, thanks for suggesting that developers are one audience to consider. I suggest considering them by linking any challenges here that look like "bugs" and keeping the links between MediaWiki.org and Bugzilla (on WikiMedia.org) alive and intact, because I'm also thinking of another audience: newbies, and people with problems, especially people who do not yet know whether their challenge is caused by a bug or not.
 * I've tried to contribute a missing link - find the Toolserver page here on MediaWiki.org - red, eh? DELETED!  But, go to that page as if to create a new page, and you'll see the deletion log and summary for why it's blank.  Why doesn't MediaWiki.org have (or permit) at least a disambiguation page for any significant MediaWiki or Wikimedia vocabulary word?  Like admin, bureaucrat, navigation, file, files, file structure,  image, interwiki links, layout, lists, math, skin and so on for many more words. That's all I was trying to offer my fellow newbies - live blue instead of dead red links to help us avoid doing the same information hunting, over, and over, and over ...
 * Oh well --- Peter Blaise peterblaise 19:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)