User talk:HappyDog

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)

A question concerning your extension
Hello, your work seems interesting and could possibly be helpful on my page.

Is there a way to somehow alias Infobox -> data. What I mean is I have lots of pages in category and each page has a Infobox. I want to add all of these into table and I don't want to go manually through all the pages. Any solutions?


 * Hi - I have given a preliminary response to this question where you posted it at my own wiki: http://www.kennel17.co.uk/testwiki/Talk:WikiDB/Features. We can continue the discussion there. --HappyDog 14:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for a little help
I just created the Google sitemap extension but I then I read the tag at the top of the Extension:Google Sitemap article and got confused. If I have mediawiki 1.8, does it mean I already have a sitemap generator? I'm having a really hard time trying to figure out how to create a sitemap for google for my site http://www.pop-cult.org/Wikitainment/index.php/Main_Page. I'd appreciate any help.

I didn't understand how to do the following either: You must create the file sitemap.xml in your root directory, and chmod it (change permissions) to 777 before running Special:GoogleSitemap

I supose I'll just have to create an empty file "sitemap.xml" and then fill it, just like I did with the extensions...but fill it with what? I also don't have a clue of what does change premissions mean.

I'm kinda desperated for help and I placed this same question at Extension talk:Google Sitemap, but then I realised few people actually post there, so I went with you, a user that seem to use his talk page on a regular basis. If you don't have the anwers I so desperately need, maybe you can redirect me to someone who does. Thanks beforehand. --Pop-Cult 22:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have responded on your talk page. --HappyDog 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Extension categories
Gday HappyDog I'm pretty keen to get started categorizing the extensions, I think they require a much needed sorting out in definable groups. Is there any progress on the template yet? as soon as you set it up I'll gladly follow the ruleset you make. Cheers Bouncingmolar 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've run out of stuff to do with the extensions. Maybe while i wait I can help with the extensions on meta somehow? or if you have another job? Bouncingmolar 14:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * hi Happydog, Can we please add the subcategory fields? I'd like to update the categories and make changes that matter. Cheers - Bouncingmolar 13:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * hi again, I'm getting itchy fingers. I now have a basic understanding of how to manipulate templates, Have we agreed to use "extensions by subject"? i don't think anyone else seems to be too worried. If we have agreed, I can add it in if you have other things to do :) Bouncingmolar 01:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear HappyDog,
One anonymous user:220.245.163.27 created some unnecessary edits to Extension:Anysite. (Making microsoft.com to apple.com and others). Please notify that anonymous user. Thank You. (Also I thank you for fixing my non-sense sentence about my help page! I really thanks!) --Gabeyg 12:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

crudeProtection
Im trying to use this extension to allow certain members to view a page and keep others out. After I add the name to a page and click save, it will display the message it should when it keeps someone out, but then that page will be blank from their on. Any ideas? I am using version 1.10 of mediawiki.

yay!
/me hugs HappyDog for fiddling with the search stuff :-)

-- :Bdk: 20:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * *grin* No probs. It was bugging me - that is one ugly page if you don't customise it! --HappyDog 22:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Template reversion
Hi happydog,

I recently made some changes to the template which have since been reverted by user:Voice of All. I thought that I provided sufficient discussion in agreement with you on the template page to document these changes. Voice of all has not participated in the discussion at all, but I have not yet commented on Voice of All's talk page nor reverted his changes, as I would like to know first if you also disagreed with my changes. because if so there is no point arguing. Bouncingmolar 05:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

MainPage Problem
Hey HappyDog

I've got a question. I want on my Wiki a Mainpage,which looks like the one from MediaWiki. So I designed 5 Templates, and put them on the main page.

I made a little screenshot of my problem. http://img112.imageshack.us/my.php?image=testnm8.jpg

The first template is very well.. its 100%wide so its over the whole browser.

Then I have 2 templates next to each other, They share the browser together. Under them are again 2.

and here's my problem:

Between these 4 template isn't a horizontal blank line..

my source code:

&#160; &#160;

how did you do this? ..

btw sry my English is not so well. I'm German ;)

Thanks for Helping!!

a question on comprehensive technical manual for the MediaWiki software
Hi HappyDog,

I have a question. I am conversant with PHP, but being a newbie to MediaWiki coding, I find the documentation overwhelmingly overwhelming to customise MediaWiki code to suit my needs. Googling for 'customise mediawiki' led me to your post/comment on the Library Web Chic Page where you have mentioned that mediawiki is working towards a comprehensive technical manual.

I wanted to know if there is one available (preferably as a book instead of a wiki). It would be good to have it modeled on the Learning Perl Book, littered with enough code examples that makes one feel confident to make/break MediWiki code - of course on their own installations!!

Thanks in advance for your time.

Anand

popcult
(i've sent you an e-mail with the same questions to reach you faster, you can answer me wherever you read me first)

Hi, Firstly I want to thankyou for your extension, you're making things easier for many users. However I have a doubt, what's the meaning of: You must create the file sitemap.xml in your root directory, and chmod it (change permissions) to 777 before running Special:GoogleSitemap.

Does it mean I should open the sitemap.xml and type something like chmod=777 or some command of the sort...¬¬ by now you've already realised I'm a programming analphabet that somehow has a wiki (http://www.pop-cult.org/Wikitainment in which by the way you're more than invited to become an admin if you ever want)... so I'm desperated for help to get a decent google ranking.

Thanks beforehand

--Pop-Cult 09:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

...Forget about it... I misread your last post. Thanks for your time anyway.


 * *grin* - that's not my extension, but I guess you've figured that out. Good luck with your problem. --HappyDog 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving Manual:Skinning to Manual:Skins
Could you please move Manual:Skinning to Manual:Skins? Skinning is much more relevant to developers. I moved the old Manual:Skins out of the way but I can't delete the old redirect. Thanks. --Cneubauer 16:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No - the manual is not just for developers. Manual:Skins should be a general page about skins in MediaWiki.  Manual:Skinning should be a more specific page about creating/editing skins.  I have reverted your move.  Note that there is a clear link at the top of Manual:Skins which directs people looking for skinning to the correct place. --HappyDog 16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No doubt, but currently Manual:Skins is essentially a FAQ with information on three configuration changes. That doesn't help developers or users at all, only administrators.  What I want to do is merge the administrator information on Manual:Skins into the developer information on Manual:Skinning.  There is already a Help:Skins which is information for generic users.  I can move content manually too but Manual:Skinning is a much better starting page.  --Cneubauer 16:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * These pages should be kept separate, but I see your point about Manual:Skins. I would suggest that a new Manual:Skins be created from scratch, and to contain a brief introduction plus links to appropriate help pages for (separately) users, admins & developers, as follows:
 * User links: Help:Skins (I think that's the only useful link at present, but there may be more, e.g. to User:Monobook.css)
 * Admin links: New page Manual:Skin configuration which is where the current Manual:Skins should be moved. This page should be reworked to be a bit more readable while we're at it.  There should also be links to all the relevant config. settings and any other pages that admin users would find useful.
 * Developer links: Manual:Skinning, the various parser hooks that apply to skinning, links to Manual:Code and any other relevant code bits.
 * Also, we should link to the Sites using MediaWiki/gallery somewhere - maybe in one of the above or perhaps separately.
 * That would be my suggestion - thoughts?
 * --HappyDog 16:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's a really good idea. Something similar could be done for the extensions pages.  Right now, Manual:Extensions is more or less information on how to install extensions.  Manual:Tag Extensions and Manual:Parser Functions which used to be Extending wiki markup are developer information.  There are about 5 other pages that have various duplicative or extra information that could be linked too.  I'm heading to lunch but I'll be back in an hour or so.  --Cneubauer 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving Manual:Special pages
Could you please move or delete Manual:Special pages and then move Manual:Special Pages to Manual:Special pages. If you want to keep the content on the current page, you could move it to Manual:Special pages/old or something and I'll merge it in later. I think most of the info covered there is already in the much more robust Manual:Special Pages. Thanks. --Cneubauer 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I moved the original to Manual:Special pages/old for merging. --HappyDog 23:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Manual:Installation_guide
Hi, I left you a note on the talk page here: Manual_talk:Installation_guide. Thanks. --Cneubauer 18:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry, I forgot about sentence case. --Cneubauer 18:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GFDL
Ugh, so GFDL'd stuff has to be kept? Is that because we merged some of the content into other pages and we have to maintain the history? Is there anyway to archive pages like that so they are still around but not anywhere that a user would run into them without specifically looking for them? --Cneubauer 20:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's why. To be honest, if anyone goes to "some page/old" and then sees a massive banner that says THIS PAGE IS OLD and is still under the impression that it is current information, then I don't think there's much we can do to help them. In short, I think it's fine to leave it where it is. --HappyDog 20:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)