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)