Some text goes here, and we can discuss it.
This is a new topic discussion for test
Is there an example extension for creating a new Echo notification type?
Hey Moriel, I'm currently working on an extension that creates a new notification type for Echo, but after following Extension:Echo/Creating a new notification type I get some errors which I can't seem to be able to fix. I've tried using some other ways to make my extension work, but I can't get it to work still.
I've watched the video that's on that page, and if I'm correct you mentioned on there that there would be an example extension for creating a new notification type. Do you know if that extension already exists? I think that if I have an example to work with to be able to see where my extension goes wrong.
What errors are you getting with the notification type? is the event created?
There's no example extension per say -- you could just take a look at current examples from extensions that already create notifications, like Thanks. There are also examples of the notifications in Echo itself that might help...
The errors I'm getting are problems with using
$this. I'm not currently sitting at the computer with my code, but in several files I've had the problem that I had to use the static syntax instead of using
$this, for example in the line
'excerpt' => EchoDiscussionParser::getEditExcerpt( $revision, $this->getLanguage() ),
but also in the function
locateUsersInList, with the line
$userIds = $this->getList( $listId )->getUsers();
which all claim I can't use
Now I've tried working around that and doing that I did manage to register my new notification type in Special:Preferences, but other than that I never got the notifications to get sent to users.
Weigh in on whether to finalize the new version of the "Conflict of interest" section
You participated earlier in discussion about the "Conflict of interest" section of the draft Code of Conduct for technical spaces. There was not consensus to approve an earlier version of this section. I'm contacting you to let you know the draft has been updated, and we are now discussing whether to finalize the new version.
Please participate here.
Please participate again in improving the "Conflict of interest" section
The "Conflict of interest" section was not approved earlier.
There has been further discussion on it, aiming to solve those issues. Please participate in the sub-sections of Talk:Code of Conduct/Draft#Finalize "Conflict of interest" section? and make sure your concerns are being addressed.
User:Mattflaschen-WMF 03:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You're unsubscribed! Will You get this?
this is a new topic to test what happens when you're unsubed to your talk page.
will you get a note about this new topic?
Testing bullet lists
This is a list
- First item
- Second item
- Third item
now that you've unsubscribed to your talk page, will you still get this notification?
Please participate in discussion on updated "Marginalized and underrepresented groups" text
Thanks for participating in the earlier discussion on Talk:Code of Conduct/Draft#Marginalized and underrepresented groups. There was some support and some issues were raised. I've attempted to propose a better draft to address the issues.
Please provide feedback on suggested improvements to the Code of Conduct
Thanks to everyone who’s helped work on the Code of Conduct so far.
These are important sections, so please take a look at the proposed changes. I apologize that this feedback arrived later than planned, but I think this will create a better document.
If you prefer to give your opinion privately, feedback via e-mail is welcome at conduct-discussionwikimedia.org.
Thanks. Mattflaschen-WMF via
Hi! how are you doing? test
Please stop disrupting the discussion
You cannot decide for the community. You are just one single person who happens to work for the WMF. You are not in the position to make these decisions.
I believe you were confusing me with another user.
Your names are similar, and you both work for the WMF. You threatened me. Bad decision. You shouldn't threaten people who are trying to help you (and the community in general). It is not polite.
If you continue acting like this then that will definitely backfire. I am trying to help you by explaining that you need consensus for something big like this, and I can help you get consensus for an improved version of the COC. But if you continue acting like this then I will not help you, quite the opposite in fact.
Please think about this... is it your job to overrule consensus? Are you allowed to threaten to block people because they point out mistakes made by the WMF? Do you think the community will be happy if they hear about the way WMF staffers have handled this?
I am trying to help you guys by improving the COC so that it can get consensus at some point in the future and I get treated like this. I wonder how you guys will treat all the members of the various communities who are affected by that draft. Many of them are not going to be as helpful as I am.
Are you WMF staffers going to keep reverting ad nauseam without talking? If someone starts an RfC about this on en.wiki and explains how the WMF has treated the community then I do not think they will be happy about that. I am trying to improve the COC so that we can get consensus for it.
The Code of Conduct you are insisting on "helping with" is a Code of Conduct for the Wikimedia Technical Community, and as such, the technical community (volunteers and staff alike, who are active part of this community) have been diligently working for the better part of a year and a half to write, revise, discuss, change, and adjust.
You seem to claim ownership on fixing a document you have not participated in, nor have you been any part of its process, for the entire year and a half it has been going on.
That said, this entire endeavor would have been a lot less bothersome had you gone at it using the acceptable means - by posting your opinion and arguments on the talk page, rather than going around reverting changes that a community you seem to have very little part in has been working on.
I understand you are worried about this Code of Conduct impacting en.wiki, but this policy is about the Wikimedia Technical Spaces, as is defined in the document.
I do not dispute that a tiny group of people has spent a long time arguing about that COC. But that COC does affect a much larger group of people than you seem to think. Many of them are not super nerdy, and may not have spend a large amount of time outside of their home wiki, but that does not invalidate their opinion.
All the other communities are also using the Wikimedia Technical Spaces. For example, enwiki users often post in Wikimedia Technical Spaces. It is not a tiny group of people. I do not claim ownership of anything, but I am a member of the community, here and elsewhere, and that COC does affect me and thousands of others who did not have a say in its creation.
That is wrong.
The other communities should be consulted, this is not exclusive to mediawiki.org users. We are talking about MediaWiki.org, wikitech.wikimedia.org, Phabricator, Gerrit, technical mailing lists, technical IRC channels, and Etherpad and as far as I know (almost) every community that has a respectable size uses at least one of those things (mostly wikimedia.org, phabricator and IRC).
If we would have a decent COC (and consensus for it) then we could use it in many places.
I totally understand that someone working for the WMF might think that those places are theirs, and that the other communities are relatively unimportant, but the members of the other communities are the reason those places exist, and are the ones who pay for them...