User talk:Egfrank

Template:Extension changes
Hi - I believe you may have messed up Template:Extension because pages in the namespace Extension just don't look ok anymore. I am using FF v2.0.0.6. Jean-Lou Dupont 17:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi - I have left you a reply on my talk page. Jean-Lou Dupont 13:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Backup related extension category
Is there such a thing? Jean-Lou Dupont 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Template Extension Sample
Hmm, I was trying to figure out this edit and why the speedy was added to a page which is used as a  on the Extension#Create_a_new_extension_article page. It seems like that page is needed or the preload will fail. Thanks, still trying to figure this stuff out. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 00:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, no problem. At least now I think I have the path of how that Extension:Inputbox stuff works right in my head.  That's too bad that the   and   parameter pages do not actually show up as real links.  1) it would prevent any kind of accidental deletion and B) it would make it a lot easier to figure this stuff out. :) &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 16:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Extension:NukeDPL type
Are you sure that type should have been changed to "page action" from "special"? It's a special-page which allows you to select a list of articles based on a DPL query and then delete them along with their histories. --Nad 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New "SMW extensions" category
Hi,

Thanks for creating the new "SemanticMediaWiki extensions" category - it's already useful, and will be more so in the future. However, you should probably rename it to "Semantic MediaWiki extensions", since the original extension has that space in its name. Yaron Koren 15:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki configuration
Greetings, thank you for your comments on the support desk. I tried a few different versions of the wikipedia software and all yield the same result with munged tables as a result of included gt lt at various points. Still havent figured it out. For example I looked at Navbox and dug into it and the documentation states it relies upon Template:Qif which is deprecated by ParserFunctions.

I was pondering this and am wondering if there might be some magic within the php.ini or LocalSettings.php and am hoping you could send me yours so I could emulate your configuration and pinpoint what may be the problem. I feel there must be something I dont understand that Ive missed.

Many thanks. Nick

My email is nickdwaters@gmail.com

Should you wish to call me 623-330-5199

Re: How is search a page action?
From the taxonomy in Template_talk:Extension I think nearest match is special page, since LuceneSearch redefines the default mysql search on Special:Search. "Page action" is a bit misleading, because it implies that it's search within a page and not whole wiki. I guess that search is a core function of any wiki, and is different from other special pages, so there is some argument to single it out, especially if there are other implementations that would fall into this type... --Rainman 20:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your remarks, have just few comments. About Manual:Search - I think it's tricky writing overviews, because they tend to get out of date extremely fast (e.g. see Searching, a collection of random statements, and already fixed bugs). Instead, I guess that one would just add some basic remarks to, and leave to extensions to present their case. About forums, not that I know about (there are many forums for other specific search communities). --Rainman 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * However you prefer it... :) --Rainman 12:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Extension:Calendar (Cdamian)
hi, I have noticed you have been doing a lot of clean up of Template:Extension information for extensions. Can you have a look and add any other relevant information to the Extension:Calendar (Cdamian)  article please? --Zven 22:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Extension:BizzWiki
hi - the aforementioned 'extension' addresses, I believe, all the per-page access restrictions. It does because I included the necessary patches to the stock MediaWiki in the distribution. So, could you please remove the disclaimer ? Jean-Lou Dupont 12:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The disclaimer isn't personal to your extension, but rather has been added to all extensions that try to limit rights per-page. I'm not really in a position to judge whether or not your particular system is suitable for storing privileged information (trade secrets, credit card info, and the like).  If you think it is, you might want to talk to the MediaWiki development team about adding in your patches to the core.  You've done something that the entire MediaWiki development team doesn't think it can accomplish at this point.  It seems to be the opinion of the MediaWiki guru's that *no* extension to mediaWiki should be judged suitable for privileged content management, even despite some core patches to MediaWiki's RSS and search functions - see the link on the disclaimer for more information.


 * I added it to extensions of this class because I really don't want either the extension author or MediaWiki to get sued for loss of trade secrets, income or identity theft. Egfrank 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)