Knowledge (XXG) talk:Editnotice/Archive 4

1287: 31: 2061:) first, followed by namespace-specific notices (all of which could/should be implemented through the per-namespace editnotice system), followed by per-page editnotices and finally warnings about the particular edit the user is trying to make. That would be logical, and would also, at least in half the namespaces, put the editnotices as the topmost box. 1622: 1241: 953: 1196:. I have made so it tells what kind of editnotice you are editing (page, group or namespace notice) and so it links back to the page that an editnotice belongs to. It now also displays when editing user page notices. And it now detects and warns in many of the cases when people try to create editnotices in the wrong place. 2268:", since if you click on the current editnotice links you get an explanatory box (actually an editnotice) at the top of the editnotice you are editing, with links to all the stuff you need. And we are going to make that box visible also when normal users are just "viewing the source" of a protected editnotice. 2052:

I think that's right; obviously some notices are mutually-exclusive, and they are spread over 400 lines of code in four separate functions, so there could be some mistakes. I see absolutely no logic in that order, and a great deal of inconsistency and pointless duplication, which is a consequence of

1859:

And adding a new kind of position similar to the coordinates would be causing all kinds of problems, just like the coordinates do. Aren't you aware of the amount of problems the current coordinates are causing and the amount of hacks we have had to apply in numerous places to make them work at least

829:

TheDJ: Nah, we should test it here for some time so we know how we want it to function before we ask the devs to add anything to MediaWiki itself. And I don't see the need for a bugzilla request since we can add it so easily with some template code. (Of course, some time in the future the editnotice

656:

Just a few thoughts: One option could be to change things so that User:Username/Editnotice was shown on all the users subpages rather than just the users mainpage (and also something similar for the users talk pages) rather than lot of individual pages. The main advantage of this would be that users

567:

That sounds possible. We could use a format like User:XYZ/Editnotices/User:XYZ for the root page, and User:XYZ/Editnotices/User:XYZ/subpage for subpages. (Is there a logical way to do it without repeating the username?) I don't like the thought of all the work needed in moving existing editnotices,

1776:

If you meant the blue links: If the blue links are not placed next to the editnotice they belong to, it would be unclear which notice they belong to. Also, indicating what kind of notice a notice is can sometimes make things clearer, for instance some group notices don't apply to all subpages in a

170:

I can add a CSS class to the code to make it easy for you to hide the red "Page notice" link if you want to. You can already hide all the "Group notice" and "Page notice" links, but then also the blue links disappear. Tell me which you want to hide and I'll update the code and help you with adding

2064:

Regardless of whether that happens, it seems from that list that editnotices are much more likely to have other boxes below them than above them, so even if the links aren't floated (and I agree with you that they probably shouldn't be), putting them above the editnotice content rather than below

1818:

If you need me to move some of the notices around in SVN, I can do that. My main desire is that the links should appear in a position that, in at least the majority of cases, doesn't break the box stacking. What about moving the links to above the box? Which notices appear above the editnotice

1688:

Having these displayed to every tom, dick, and harry, is just going to lead to 1) "test page" type edit notices, 2) vandalism edit notices, 3) malplaced talk page messages. Really and truly there is a very small subset of people who take the time to create edit notices. They can opt-in to see the

848:

2: Or we can use separate pages for the "view-notice" and the editnotice. If in "view mode" the editnotice loader can first check for a separate view-notice, and if it doesn't exist the loader falls back to show the normal editnotice. But I think this is less flexible than the above method with a

547:

them we kept it as it was. It would of course be trivial to do so, but in my opinion we should rethink the place where user edit notices are stored at the same time. I don't like for example that the User talk editnotices don't have talk pages, and would rather move them into User space; creating

1765:

2: When we have a namespace notice it is shown above the group and page notices. And some of the namespace notices are not added by the editnotice loader but by a system message. Then we can not make the links float up to the right corner, unless we insert them by using the coordinates position,

1433:

As can be seen in the section above, some users find the red "Page notice" links on user pages annoying. And there have been some concerns that making it easy for every user to edit the user page notices would make them prime vandalism targets. But it is just as easy to vandalise the user page,

1159:

If there is a higher level group notice, then I think it should still be shown on lower levels even if the lower levels have subgroup notices. Just like the original MediaWiki editnotices do. And we probably at most only need three levels: Group, subgroup, and subsubgroup. But we would probably

586:

I don't watch this page, but since I kicked this off I'll at least reply once. I think that changing the system to use predefined subpages within user space is an excellent idea. The user name could be safely assumed in the subpage structure as well, so that there would be no need to repeat the

490:

Thanks! I was getting a bit worried there for a minute. I figured that you had gone off for the night or something, and that I'd have to wait 24 hours for a few fairly trivial edits to actually be made... which brings up an issue. Don't you think that creating page edit notices requiring admin

152:

Hi ResMar. You must be referring to the red "Page notice" link you now see on most User talk pages. You should not see it on other talk pages like this one, since you are not an admin. (If you do, please tell us since then it is a bug.) That redlink is automatically put there by the editnotice

2195:

Yup, that's what I'm saying. I don't agree that the namespace notice is fundamentally different to the group and page notices (or any other type you might wish to add); it's no less likely to need discussion or editing than a group or page notice. I would add an equivalent edit link for the

731:

When non-admins and IP-users "view the source" of a protected page, they currently don't see the editnotice of the page. But the editnotice often contains information that is useful even when just viewing the source. For instance if the user is going to discuss the source and ask for it to be

587:

username (changing the examples "User:XYZ/Editnotices/User:XYZ" into just "User:XYZ/Editnotices" , and "User:XYZ/Editnotices/User:XYZ/subpage" into "User:XYZ/Editnotices/subpage"). As for moving the existing editnotices... yea, that'd be annoying, but it should only need to be done once.

1715:, the edit links create an unwanted gap between the boxes. Would it be reasonable to float the edit links into the space immediately below the first heading, opposite the "from Knowledge (XXG)..." tagline? This would keep them out of the way and stop them breaking the box stacking. 1029:

I agree. And I can fairly easily add that to the editnotice loader. (The tricky part is if you also want the convenient create link for that...) But there have been some resistance before to add to much functionality to the loader, but I don't understand why people have been resisting

188:

When I edit a talk page theres a redlink in the upper-right corner that says "Edit notice." Really I don't think sticking redlinks on talk pages is the way to make people recognize it exists, but there should be an option to get rid of that, with <span class="db-ZWRpdG5vdGljZQ":

1293:- I just got confused by the talk page of an editnotice, I thought it was the editnotice for a talk page. This is tricky stuff, even for us editnotice experts. So to alleviate such confusion I created the group notice that is displayed when editing the talk page of any editnotice: 2256:

Happy-melon: There are only one namespace notice per namespace and we have direct links to each of them from this how-to guide. So we don't need a link to the namespace notice, it would just add to the clutter on the edit pages. So I strongly oppose links to the namespace

735:

So I am planning to make it so the editnotices are loaded also when just "viewing the source" of the pages. Technically I will do this by adding the editnotice loader to the system messages that are shown when non-admins and IP-users view semi and fully protected pages:

1445:

I can make it so the red "Page notice" link is only shown to the user himself (and to admins and accountcreators), while all other users will not see the red link. That would make those notices a little harder to access. The "cost" would be two lines of javascript in

845:". Then the editnotice can choose to show different text for the two different cases. (This can even make the editnotice behave in a third way when it is just seen on the editnotice's own template page, since then the "notice action" parameter is not defined.) 1512:

I also prefer option 1. I would also support protection of userpage editnotices. (The problem with your proposal last May is that it went too far - if you had proposed just protecting editnotices, it would likely have attracted unanimous support.) — Martin

548:

structures mirroring those in the Template:Editnotices space would be better as well I think, to keep track of them using Special:PrefixIndex more easily. With redlinks showing only for the user whose space we're in, it wouldn't make using them any harder.

125:

annoying to me to show up at a talk page and see a redlink in the corner pushing the bar down. I'd love to know why this was made standard on talk pages. It's a useful template but forcing it up there is not going to make anyone's experience better.

681:

I and Amalthea have been working on methods to add documentation to .css and .js files. As a result I have made it so .css and .js pages in MediaWiki space now show their page notice (if there is one) already when just viewing the script pages. See

1437:

As has been suggested several times on this talkpage (see the archives): It would be nice if those notices were only editable by the user himself, and admins. But I do not know if we can set the filters so those notices are protected like that.

1761:

1: It would probably break on any page that has coordinates, since they are placed in that corner. We already have a lot of problems with the coordinates, both on some pages that have odd headings and in some skins. Adding more problems seems

1390:

to the templates and notices mentioned above with "See also" links between them, since if we update the code of one of them the others most likely need updating too, but that adds yet some pages. So we should probably just list them here on

2260:

While finding the page and group notices is much more complicated since there are many of them and there are different naming for them depending on if you are on a user page or not. So for the page and group notices the added clutter is

1456:

I could hide the link entirely for all normal users. That only "costs" a small code change to the editnotice loader, no extra javascript needed. But then the user himself will have a harder time to find and edit his own user page

657:

could easily watchlist their own editnotices (if automatic protection is not provided by the edit filter). And the switch function could be used within the users global editnotice to custimise the results per page if required. --

836:

1: I can feed a parameter to the editnotice that tells it if the page source is being "edited" or just "viewed". So when a non-admin "views the source" of the Main Page, the editnotice loader could call the editnotice like this

495:) with controversial page edit notices? This is my first exposure to using them, and it seems a tad ridiculous to have needed your help here (not that I don't appreciate it, it's just... it seems like "process wonkery", to me). 1880:

above, see also the examples linked to in that section. And there are other explanations and examples in other sections of this page and in the archives of this page. And in other places. (If I remember right the archives of

360: 331: 974:. Non-admins now see editnotices when just "viewing the source" of protected pages and MediaWiki messages. And I have checked many of the group notices and some of the more important page notices, and updated some of them. 1434:

although vandalising the editnotice is a bit more sneaky. Personally I am more worried that users will be very annoyed when someone else edits their user page notices, since I got very annoyed when that happened to me.

1769:

3: We use a lot of "clear:both;" in the editnotice loader because we have had problems with floating content in the editnotices, and with floating content in general. So adding floating links probably will cause new

627:

If you mean opening up editing of editnotices for user subpages: Yes, I agree that users should be able to edit the editnotices for all pages in their user space. And they should also be able to edit their group

163:. We have put it there to make it easier for users to create page notices for their user page and user talk page. This has been discussed for a long time now, see the latest round of discussions in the section 2111:

We don't add a link to the namespace notice since it is only rarely edited, and users probably don't have any need to view its source and discuss it on its talk page. And most pages don't have a group notice.

708:", so they can choose to display other text when the page is only viewed. That is the same parameter that we will feed editnotices in all namespaces when a non-admin "views the source" of a protected page. 1586:

displays the name of the current user when it is used in system messages. It also does that when non-admins "view the source" of a protected page. So it works in all the cases in the editnotice system.

2289:

would be useful. Since editnotices are protected by the title blacklist rather than protected individually, I don't think the editnotice is visible until a user tried to edit the editnotice. — Martin

1811:

4) I did mainly mean the blue links. But blue links could be placed within the editnotice box itself, in the bottom-right corner say. That would be clearer than placing them outside anyway,

2114:

Happy-melon: So you are saying we should add the "Page notice" link above the whole editnotice area? That would mean above the namespace notice. Then this is what most non-admins would see:

316: 833:

Amalthea: Yeah, I have been looking around and realised there are cases when it will be pretty strange. So I have come up with some methods so we can override this when we don't want it:

269:

You should be seeing this on user talk pages only, not on other talk pages. There is a proposal in the section below to hide these links sometimes. Your input would be welcome. — Martin

1707:

I very much appreciate the new edit links for editnotices. However, editnotices are almost always displayed above other notices included by the software; when these notices also use

1870:

And we have problems with floats both because content that people put in the editnotices, and because of MediaWiki produced content that comes before and after the editnotice loader.

1856:

shown when editing the lead or the whole page. It is only when editing sections further down on a page that they are not shown. So your suggestion does collide with the coordinates.

1294: 355: 311: 212:

That's quite confusing because "edit notice" is not one of the links provided under this system at all. Are you sure it doesn't say "Group notice" or "Page notice"? — Martin

830:

system should be standardised and added to MediaWiki, so that all Wikimedia projects can use it, but we haven't even agreed on how we should link to the editnotices...)

1918:

Hmm, I see what you mean: the coordinates are shown when you hit preview if they're in the preview output, as you would expect. And the edit notices are also shown...

1487: 620:

If you mean opening up editing of editnotices for any page, like articles: There are several problems with that, so I think they should remain protected. See section

1193: 1873:

And we should NOT change the order that MediaWiki displays things above the edit window. Things are displayed in the current order since that is the logical order.

2196:

namespace notice as well, which both eliminates confusion, and makes the message easier to edit. The links could (maybe should regardless) be put in a wrapper ("

1595:

will be more efficient. So I will remove that javascript and CSS-file. Note that the unhiding for admins and accountcreators is still done with javascript + CSS.

882:

Ah, yes, passing in a parameter is good. Not sure how often we're going to bother switching on it, but at least on the main page it's going to be useful.

2065:

makes it much less likely that they will break box stacking. I guess from looking at the surface of the code that that might not be particularly easy.

1399: 2144:

That would be confusing and ridiculous, since that would make it look like the namespace notice is the page notice. The current layout is much clearer:

747:

Several of the namespace notices don't make sense when just "viewing the source" of a page. So I think I will add a parameter to the loader, like this

326: 418:

Forgot I left a note there. Stumbled across that category just recently. I agree with the NRHP group notice, else there will be 50+ notices there. ---

1808:

3) They'd be fine if they used positioning like the coord templates, I'm sure. I'll take your word against using floats within the editnotice frame.

1860:

in most cases? Still coordinates break in many places and in some skins and in some browsers. The coordinates interfere with so many things...

86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 1989: 1549:

the user, we can use the fancy {{REVISIONUSER}} magic word, which in system messages evaluates to the editor currently editing the page (see

1163:

And I agree with your suggested placing of the subgroup notices, under "Template:Editnotices/Group/..." just like the current group notices.

1946: 1406:" and so on. That's the interface message that is shown when non-admins try to edit an editnotice but fail since the notices are protected. 1160:

already be pretty okay with just group and subgroup notices. Anyway, this is no problem for me to code up and add to the editnotice loader.

1863:

Part of the point is that the links now indicate which message is a group notice and which is a page notice. But we can't place the links

321: 1933: 398: 1038: 1004: 2024: 526:

again shortly. It makes no sense at all that you can create the editnotice for your root user page but not for the subpages. — Martin

2032: 915:. It then doesn't show the namespace notice and it forwards the parameter to the group and page notices it loads. It does not use " 1501:

My personal preference, at this point, is 1. Once the editnotice was created, we can hope that the user put it on his watchlist.

1921:

Looking at the source code, there is no particular indication that the order has anything to do with logic; there is actually a

1121: 2036: 2014: 1992: 1301: 1254: 1215: 1128: 438:

I removed navbar from the rest of those. Gadget: did you say you have left a note somewhere about those editnotices? — Martin

2028: 1975: 1773:

And remember, only admins see the red links (normal users only see them on user pages, and soon only on their own user page).

1453:

I could also hide the blue link so other users have a harder time to access the notice even if it exists. Same cost as above.

930:

until we have checked the more important notices and updated them to show sane text when only "viewing the source" of a page.

1135: 769:

No objections, although I'm not sure how useful that really is. And at least the one on the main page will be incorrect. :)

2019: 1867:

the editnotice boxes, since the boxes are not added by the editnotice loader but by the users that create the editnotices.

1530:

I agree; it wouldn't have been unanimous though, a couple of editors questioned the need for any kind of auto-protection.

683: 459:

On the Future episodes editnotice talk page that you already fixed. If I stumble across any more, I will just be bold. ---

1369:". But then I realised that in a sense there is one, since when you edit it itself displays as the group notice saying: " 1965: 971: 927: 912: 741: 1925:

just for cleaning up what is one of the worst bits of code in MediaWiki. As best I can tell, the order is as follows:

1635:

user or user talk page (admins and accountcreators also see it). Blue "Page notice" links are still shown to all users.

523: 47: 17: 1447: 967: 923: 908: 808: 737: 704:

I have now made so when the editnotices are shown directly on the .css and .js pages in MediaWiki space they are fed "

2233:

If we implement the idea somewhere else on this page, you might like to go with "root" rather than "group". — Martin

2212:") to make it clearer what the links point to (and reduce the importance of where exactly the links are positioned). 919:", instead the parameter is empty but defined when the editnotices are shown as usual (when actually editing a page). 1928: 38: 2054: 2009: 2004: 1984: 1960: 1882: 1090:

Ah, nice template, thanks. But I think it would be neater if it were incorporated into the main system. — Martin

2045: 1970: 1941: 1192:

I have updated the "editnotice editnotice". That is, the group notice that is shown when you edit editnotices:

258: 201: 190: 133: 102: 1034: 1008: 631:(I currently have no preference on where to place the user space notices, I'll have to think more about that.) 1113: 2276: 2186: 2041: 1893: 1785: 1643: 1603: 1472: 1414: 1327: 1268: 1204: 1174: 1052: 982: 938: 857: 759: 716: 694: 639: 389:

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues

179: 110: 2286: 2265: 2197: 2053:

the way the system has been built up over the years. A logical order would have the most general notices (

1392: 2058: 1952: 1384: 1112:

So what's the simplest way of implementing this. We'd need some kind of recursive check, so that on page

543:

We briefly discussed opening the system up for user notices, but since there wasn't anybody speaking out

2221: 2074: 1828: 1724: 1669: 1631:- I have now deployed option 1 above. The red Page notice" link is now only shown when a user edits his 1559: 744:. This is similar to what I did for .css and .js pages in MediaWiki space (see previous section above). 1482:

We certainly could make user editnotices autoprotected, just like the .js/.css subpages are, using the

1998: 1372: 1483: 662: 409: 342: 253: 196: 157: 128: 2272: 2182: 1889: 1781: 1639: 1599: 1566: 1531: 1502: 1491: 1468: 1410: 1323: 1264: 1200: 1170: 1080: 1048: 978: 934: 883: 853: 785: 770: 755: 712: 690: 635: 604: 549: 512: 175: 106: 1957:

Per-namespace editnotices, and per-page editnotices where those are still (accidentally) enabled

1464:

I prefer option 1 or 2. So, does anyone have any points of view which option we should choose?

1286: 1922: 2209: 2201: 1166:

So, what do the rest of you guys think about this? Should we add subgroup editnotice loading?

491:

assistance is a bit wonkish? I mean, has there really been significant issues (or any issues

2301: 2280: 2245: 2228: 2213: 2190: 2081: 2066: 1897: 1835: 1820: 1789: 1749: 1731: 1716: 1697: 1676: 1661: 1647: 1607: 1571: 1536: 1525: 1507: 1496: 1476: 1418: 1352: 1331: 1272: 1230: 1208: 1178: 1153: 1102: 1085: 1056: 1023: 986: 942: 888: 861: 812: 790: 775: 763: 720: 698: 666: 643: 608: 580: 554: 538: 516: 470: 450: 429: 413: 378: 346: 281: 264: 240: 224: 207: 183: 139: 114: 804: 298: 1660:

for details). But for now I agree that it's the cleanest way to handle this situation.

903:

I have now updated the loader so it uses method 1 above. It can now be called like this

2296: 2240: 2178:

the pages. It doesn't have to look pretty, instead it has to be logical and functional.

1744: 1710: 1695: 1657: 1520: 1350: 1225: 1148: 1097: 1018: 658: 575: 533: 463: 445: 422: 405: 371: 338: 276: 233: 219: 1460:

And of course, we have the option to keep the link visible to all users, as it is now.

1068: 391:

which also need updating. They should probably be made into a group editnotice though.

590: 498: 1589:

I had already added the javascript and CSS-file to do this the "old" way, but using

1316:

You're editing the talk page of the group notice for Somepage and all its subpages.

751:, so it only displays the group and page notices when only "viewing the source". 294:

Now that there is a direct link to all edit notices, should those that are using

1656:

work this way: it's dangerous and will probably be removed at some point (track

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

796: 795:

Have you made a bugzilla request so we can get this functionality properly ? —

1062: 2292: 2236: 1740: 1690: 1516: 1345: 1221: 1144: 1093: 1014: 571: 529: 441: 272: 215: 1966:

warning you get if you try to create a new section and save it with no text

1033:

Meanwhile, what you can do now is to put some code in the group notice for

1344:

Is there an editnotice for the editnotice editnotice? Just to be safe... –

1250:- Oh, good idea! Thanks for pointing that one out. So I have now updated 361:

Template:Editnotices/Page/National Scout jamboree (Boy Scouts of America)

332:

Template:Editnotices/Page/National Scout jamboree (Boy Scouts of America)

2205: 2158: 2119: 1545:

I just remembered, David, if we'd want to show the editnotice links to

1003:

page, not just a root page. For example I would like an editnotice on

1876:

Some of this has already been discussed and explained in the section

1488:

WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 47#Autoprotected user space pages

2108:

And soon it might be loading more kinds, such as subgroup notices.

2096:

The editnotice loader currently loads three main kinds of notices:

1441:

But I know how to do some other things, so here are some options:

568:

so we'd have to run with parallel systems for some time. — Martin

479:

Allow users to create editnotices for all pages in their userspace

194:

span.editnotice{ display:none; } (Sorry I'm not very good at CSS)

1074: 327:

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Why was my page deleted?

2163: 2147: 2133: 2124: 1450:

to load a small CSS file when the user edits his own userpage.

1395:. This talk page section also pretty much serves this purpose. 1007:

and on all its subpages, but I do not particularly want it on

732:

changed, then he might need to know what the editnotice says.

25: 1981:

Messages generated by hooks such as Capthas, AbuseFilter, etc

1311:

You're editing the talk page of the page notice for Somepage.

839:{{Template:Editnotices/Page/Main Page| notice action=view }} 1404:

This is the group notice for Somepage and all its subpages.

1938:

Custom editintro supplied by &editintro= GET parameter

1580:

Oh, thanks Amalthea. I ran detailed tests, and as you say

1070:

Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

317:

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Hannah Montana episodes

1766:

which will collide with existing coordinates on a page.

1551: 1075: 1069: 1063: 999:

It would be nice if a group editnotice could be put on

388: 229:

Is there a specific page that shows "Edit notice"? ---

1044:

Let's see what the others who watch this page thinks.

1295:

Template:Editnotices/Group/Template talk:Editnotices

621: 356:

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Signatures

322:

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Cheatsheet

312:

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Signatures

1214:Nice. Perhaps you could do something similar with 1041:and its subpages. But coding that is a bit tricky. 1037:that makes it only display the editnotice when on 1689:navbar. It should be hidden from everyone else. – 1064:Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Arbitration 522:I completely agree and I will be bringing up at 1802:1) Coordinates don't render in the edit screen. 1550: 1194:Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Editnotices 171:the right code to your personal /monobook.css. 1565:to see if the user is editing his own space. 684:MediaWiki talk:Clearyourcache#Show editnotice 8: 1061:For an example where just that is done, see 352:I took care of these, since I created them. 251:Page notice, actually, sorry about that ~_~ 841:. And when the page is edited it can feed " 387:Thanks, there's also a load of subpage off 2264:And we don't need an explanatory link to " 1985:warning about browsers that mangle unicode 1758:That seems hard to do for several reasons: 1400:MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-editnotice 1122:Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:A/B/C 784:will be able to make good use of this. :) 1297:. It has pretty much the same content as 922:We should wait with adding the loader to 749:{{editnotice load| namespace notice=no }} 2174:Remember that this is is only seen when 1307:, most importantly it says things like: 1129:Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:A/B 617:VIR: Regarding your first message above: 1067:, which uses a helper template to show 1189:And now for some confusing stuff! :)) 1136:Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:A 1039:Knowledge (XXG):In the news/Candidates 1005:Knowledge (XXG):In the news/Candidates 964:{{editnotice load|notice action=view}} 905:{{editnotice load|notice action=view}} 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 394:I've gone an removed the navbar from 7: 1555:, for example). Compare it with the 1371:You're editing the group notice for 1076:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests 404:myself since it's not protected. -- 2005:warning about the wiki being locked 1402:with the same logic, so it tells " 24: 1737:That makes sense to me. — Martin 1380:I was thinking of perhaps adding 562:End of content from my talk page. 101:This message was moved here from 1815:would solve the stacking issues. 1620: 1285: 1239: 951: 304:links have those links removed? 29: 1365:Haha! I was just going to say " 1216:Template:editnotice explanation 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Editnotice 1652:I wouldn't get used to having 1131:. If it doesn't exist then ... 1124:. If it doesn't exist then ... 622:Allow more non-admins to edit? 1: 2025:warning about semi-protection 995:Suggestion for group messages 699:01:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC) 2302:13:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 2281:08:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 2246:19:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 2229:17:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 2191:00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 2082:23:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 1898:20:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 1836:12:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 1790:10:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 1750:09:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1698:15:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 1677:13:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 1648:11:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 1608:11:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 1572:09:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 1537:09:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 1419:02:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC) 1353:01:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC) 1332:01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC) 1273:14:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 1179:08:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 1154:13:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 987:17:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 972:MediaWiki:Protectedinterface 928:MediaWiki:Protectedinterface 913:MediaWiki:Protectedinterface 742:MediaWiki:Protectedinterface 721:15:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 667:21:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 644:20:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 609:19:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 581:13:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 555:09:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 539:22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 517:22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 471:22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 451:09:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC) 1877: 1732:23:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1526:15:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1508:10:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1497:10:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1477:09:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1448:MediaWiki:Common.js/edit.js 1231:15:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1209:01:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1103:10:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1086:10:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1057:09:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1035:Knowledge (XXG):In the news 1024:08:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 1009:Knowledge (XXG):In the news 968:MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext 943:16:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 924:MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext 909:MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext 889:13:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC) 862:13:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC) 813:11:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC) 791:10:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC) 781: 776:10:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC) 764:08:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) 738:MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext 430:23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 414:23:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 379:23:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 347:22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 307:Here's a few I could find: 282:15:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 265:14:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 241:14:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 225:13:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 208:13:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 184:06:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 164: 140:01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 115:06:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC) 2320: 1976:force-edit-summary-warning 1971:force-edit-summary-warning 1393:Knowledge (XXG):Editnotice 782:discussion at the very top 399:Future episodes editnotice 146:End of message moved here. 2055:MediaWiki:readonlywarning 1883:MediaWiki talk:Common.css 1703:Positioning of edit links 1552:my talk page's editnotice 485:Copied from my talk page: 1885:should have some of it.) 1490:for an example of that. 1398:And I have just updated 290:Editnotices using navbar 103:Template talk:Editnotice 1999:editing-an-old-revision 1114:Knowledge (XXG):A/B/C/D 727:Viewing protected pages 2059:Mediawiki:Talkpagetext 2020:JS/CSS preview notices 1949:for deletion/move logs 1302:editnotice explanation 1255:editnotice explanation 2010:not-logged-in warning 1961:Edit conflict warning 1375:and all its subpages. 1185:Editnotice editnotice 95:Why is this standard? 42:of past discussions. 2033:cascading protection 1953:talk page editnotice 1934:no-such-user warning 1929:interface editnotice 1373:Template:Editnotices 907:if/when called from 706:notice action = view 2151:A namespace notice. 2128:A namespace notice. 2099:1: Namespace notice 2037:creation protection 1484:Special:AbuseFilter 962:- I have now added 2285:I think a link to 1079:and its subpages. 917:notice action=edit 843:notice action=edit 686:for more on that. 2300: 2244: 2171: 2170: 2161: 2155: 2154: 2141: 2140: 2132: 2131: 2122: 1748: 1524: 1229: 1152: 1101: 1022: 740:and perhaps also 579: 537: 449: 280: 223: 92: 91: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2311: 2290: 2234: 2226: 2218: 2164: 2157: 2148: 2134: 2125: 2118: 2079: 2071: 1978:for new sections 1942:new-article help 1833: 1825: 1738: 1729: 1721: 1714: 1674: 1666: 1655: 1654:{{REVISIONUSER}} 1627: 1624: 1623: 1594: 1593: 1592:{{REVISIONUSER}} 1585: 1584: 1583:{{REVISIONUSER}} 1569: 1564: 1558: 1554: 1534: 1514: 1505: 1494: 1389: 1383: 1306: 1300: 1289: 1259: 1253: 1246: 1243: 1242: 1219: 1142: 1091: 1083: 1078: 1072: 1066: 1012: 965: 958: 955: 954: 918: 906: 886: 844: 840: 800: 788: 773: 750: 707: 605:talk to Ohms law 569: 552: 527: 513:talk to Ohms law 466: 439: 425: 403: 397: 374: 303: 297: 270: 263: 261: 236: 213: 206: 204: 162: 156: 138: 136: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2319: 2318: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2222: 2214: 2162: 2123: 2102:2: Group notice 2075: 2067: 2042:long page error 2029:full-protection 1829: 1821: 1725: 1717: 1708: 1705: 1670: 1662: 1653: 1625: 1621: 1591: 1590: 1582: 1581: 1567: 1562: 1556: 1532: 1503: 1492: 1431: 1429:User page links 1387: 1381: 1304: 1298: 1257: 1251: 1244: 1240: 1187: 1081: 997: 963: 956: 952: 916: 904: 884: 842: 838: 798: 786: 771: 748: 729: 705: 679: 677:MediaWiki space 550: 481: 464: 423: 401: 395: 372: 301: 295: 292: 259: 252: 234: 202: 195: 160: 154: 153:system, not by 134: 127: 97: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2317: 2315: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2273:David Göthberg 2269: 2262: 2258: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2183:David Göthberg 2179: 2169: 2168: 2167:A page notice. 2156: 2153: 2152: 2146: 2145: 2139: 2138: 2137:A page notice. 2130: 2129: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2112: 2109: 2106: 2105:3: Page notice 2103: 2100: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2062: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2039: 2022: 2017: 2012: 2007: 2002: 1996: 1987: 1982: 1979: 1973: 1968: 1963: 1958: 1955: 1950: 1944: 1939: 1936: 1931: 1919: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1890:David Göthberg 1886: 1874: 1871: 1868: 1861: 1857: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1816: 1809: 1806: 1803: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1782:David Göthberg 1778: 1774: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1753: 1752: 1704: 1701: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1640:David Göthberg 1636: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1600:David Göthberg 1596: 1587: 1575: 1574: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1499: 1469:David Göthberg 1462: 1461: 1458: 1454: 1451: 1430: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1411:David Göthberg 1407: 1396: 1378: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1324:David Göthberg 1320: 1319: 1318: 1313: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1265:David Göthberg 1261: 1234: 1233: 1201:David Göthberg 1186: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1171:David Göthberg 1167: 1164: 1161: 1139: 1138: 1134:Finally check 1132: 1125: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1049:David Göthberg 1045: 1042: 1031: 996: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 979:David Göthberg 975: 946: 945: 935:David Göthberg 931: 920: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 854:David Göthberg 850: 846: 834: 831: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 780:Ah, well, the 756:David Göthberg 728: 725: 724: 723: 713:David Göthberg 709: 691:David Göthberg 678: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 649: 648: 647: 646: 636:David Göthberg 632: 629: 625: 618: 612: 611: 588: 565: 564: 559: 558: 557: 496: 488: 487: 480: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 465:Gadget850 (Ed) 454: 453: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 424:Gadget850 (Ed) 392: 382: 381: 373:Gadget850 (Ed) 365: 364: 363: 358: 335: 334: 329: 324: 319: 314: 291: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 249: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 235:Gadget850 (Ed) 193:</span: --> 176:David Göthberg 172: 168: 149: 148: 119: 118: 107:David Göthberg 96: 93: 90: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2316: 2303: 2298: 2294: 2288: 2287:WP:Editnotice 2284: 2283: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2254: 2247: 2242: 2238: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2227: 2225: 2219: 2217: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2177: 2173: 2172: 2166: 2165: 2160: 2150: 2149: 2143: 2142: 2136: 2135: 2127: 2126: 2121: 2113: 2110: 2107: 2104: 2101: 2098: 2095: 2094: 2083: 2080: 2078: 2072: 2070: 2063: 2060: 2056: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2040: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2023: 2021: 2018: 2016: 2013: 2011: 2008: 2006: 2003: 2000: 1997: 1994: 1991: 1988: 1986: 1983: 1980: 1977: 1974: 1972: 1969: 1967: 1964: 1962: 1959: 1956: 1954: 1951: 1948: 1945: 1943: 1940: 1937: 1935: 1932: 1930: 1927: 1926: 1924: 1920: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1879: 1875: 1872: 1869: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1837: 1834: 1832: 1826: 1824: 1817: 1814: 1810: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1751: 1746: 1742: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1730: 1728: 1722: 1720: 1712: 1702: 1700: 1699: 1696: 1694: 1693: 1678: 1675: 1673: 1667: 1665: 1659: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1588: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1573: 1570: 1561: 1553: 1548: 1544: 1538: 1535: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1522: 1518: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1506: 1500: 1498: 1495: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1465: 1459: 1455: 1452: 1449: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1435: 1428: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1394: 1386: 1385:documentation 1379: 1376: 1374: 1368: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1354: 1351: 1349: 1348: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1314: 1312: 1309: 1308: 1303: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1256: 1249: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1232: 1227: 1223: 1217: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1197: 1195: 1190: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1165: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1150: 1146: 1137: 1133: 1130: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1115: 1104: 1099: 1095: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1084: 1077: 1071: 1065: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1043: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1020: 1016: 1010: 1006: 1002: 994: 988: 984: 980: 976: 973: 969: 961: 950: 949: 948: 947: 944: 940: 936: 932: 929: 925: 921: 914: 910: 902: 901: 890: 887: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 863: 859: 855: 851: 847: 835: 832: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 814: 810: 806: 802: 794: 793: 792: 789: 783: 779: 778: 777: 774: 768: 767: 766: 765: 761: 757: 752: 745: 743: 739: 733: 726: 722: 718: 714: 710: 703: 702: 701: 700: 696: 692: 687: 685: 676: 668: 664: 660: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 645: 641: 637: 633: 630: 626: 623: 619: 616: 615: 614: 613: 610: 606: 602: 601: 597: 593: 585: 584: 583: 582: 577: 573: 563: 560: 556: 553: 546: 542: 541: 540: 535: 531: 525: 524:WT:Editnotice 521: 520: 519: 518: 514: 510: 509: 505: 501: 494: 486: 483: 482: 478: 472: 469: 468: 467: 458: 457: 456: 455: 452: 447: 443: 437: 431: 428: 427: 426: 417: 416: 415: 411: 407: 400: 393: 390: 386: 385: 384: 383: 380: 377: 376: 375: 366: 362: 359: 357: 354: 353: 351: 350: 349: 348: 344: 340: 333: 330: 328: 325: 323: 320: 318: 315: 313: 310: 309: 308: 305: 300: 289: 283: 278: 274: 268: 267: 266: 262: 257: 256: 250: 242: 239: 238: 237: 228: 227: 226: 221: 217: 211: 210: 209: 205: 200: 199: 192: 187: 186: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 166: 159: 151: 150: 147: 144: 143: 142: 141: 137: 132: 131: 124: 117: 116: 112: 108: 104: 99: 98: 94: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2223: 2215: 2175: 2076: 2068: 1995:to RevDelete 1864: 1853: 1852:Coordinates 1830: 1822: 1812: 1726: 1718: 1706: 1691: 1687: 1671: 1663: 1632: 1628: 1560:ROOTPAGENAME 1546: 1466: 1463: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1403: 1370: 1366: 1346: 1315: 1310: 1290: 1247: 1198: 1191: 1188: 1140: 1120:First check 1111: 1000: 998: 959: 753: 746: 734: 730: 688: 680: 599: 595: 591: 566: 561: 544: 507: 503: 499: 492: 489: 484: 461: 460: 420: 419: 369: 368: 336: 306: 293: 254: 231: 230: 197: 145: 129: 122: 120: 100: 75: 43: 37: 2266:Editnotices 2198:Editnotices 2159:Page notice 2120:Page notice 1947:log extract 1218:? — Martin 1127:Next check 1011:. — Martin 191:Edit notice 36:This is an 2015:JS warning 849:parameter. 158:editnotice 2202:namespace 2057:and then 1923:whole bug 1770:problems. 1141:— Martin 659:WOSlinker 406:WOSlinker 339:WOSlinker 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2257:notices. 1990:warnings 1819:loader? 1568:Amalthea 1533:Amalthea 1504:Amalthea 1493:Amalthea 1457:notices. 1082:Amalthea 1073:only on 885:Amalthea 809:contribs 787:Amalthea 772:Amalthea 551:Amalthea 2176:editing 2046:warning 2001:warning 1993:related 1762:unwise. 628:notice. 493:at all! 39:archive 1878:Navbar 1865:inside 1777:group. 1658:T21006 1486:. See 624:above. 299:navbar 167:above. 165:Navbar 2261:okay. 2224:melon 2216:Happy 2206:group 2077:melon 2069:Happy 1831:melon 1823:Happy 1805:2) ^^ 1727:melon 1719:Happy 1711:fmbox 1672:melon 1664:Happy 1291:Added 121:It's 16:< 2297:talk 2293:MSGJ 2277:talk 2241:talk 2237:MSGJ 2210:page 2187:talk 1894:talk 1786:talk 1745:talk 1741:MSGJ 1692:xeno 1644:talk 1629:Done 1604:talk 1547:only 1521:talk 1517:MSGJ 1473:talk 1415:talk 1347:xeno 1328:talk 1269:talk 1248:Done 1226:talk 1222:MSGJ 1205:talk 1175:talk 1149:talk 1145:MSGJ 1098:talk 1094:MSGJ 1053:talk 1019:talk 1015:MSGJ 983:talk 970:and 960:Done 939:talk 926:and 911:and 858:talk 805:talk 760:talk 717:talk 695:talk 663:talk 640:talk 576:talk 572:MSGJ 534:talk 530:MSGJ 446:talk 442:MSGJ 410:talk 343:talk 277:talk 273:MSGJ 220:talk 216:MSGJ 180:talk 123:very 111:talk 105:. -- 2044:or 2035:or 2031:or 2027:or 1854:are 1813:and 1633:own 1030:it. 1001:any 966:to 545:for 367:--- 337:-- 260:Mar 255:Res 203:Mar 198:Res 189:--> 135:Mar 130:Res 2295:· 2279:) 2271:-- 2239:· 2208:• 2204:• 2200:: 2189:) 2181:-- 1896:) 1888:-- 1788:) 1780:-- 1743:· 1713:}} 1709:{{ 1646:) 1638:-- 1606:) 1598:-- 1563:}} 1557:{{ 1519:· 1475:) 1467:-- 1417:) 1409:-- 1388:}} 1382:{{ 1377:". 1367:no 1330:) 1322:-- 1305:}} 1299:{{ 1271:) 1263:-- 1258:}} 1252:{{ 1224:· 1207:) 1199:-- 1177:) 1169:-- 1147:· 1116:: 1096:· 1055:) 1047:-- 1017:· 985:) 977:-- 941:) 933:-- 860:) 852:-- 811:) 807:• 801:DJ 797:Th 762:) 754:-- 719:) 711:-- 697:) 689:-- 665:) 642:) 634:-- 607:) 598:* 594:= 589:— 574:· 532:· 515:) 506:* 502:= 497:— 462:— 444:· 421:— 412:) 402:}} 396:{{ 370:— 345:) 302:}} 296:{{ 275:· 232:— 218:· 182:) 174:-- 161:}} 155:{{ 113:) 2299:) 2291:( 2275:( 2243:) 2235:( 2220:‑ 2185:( 2073:‑ 1892:( 1827:‑ 1784:( 1747:) 1739:( 1723:‑ 1668:‑ 1642:( 1626:Y 1602:( 1523:) 1515:( 1471:( 1413:( 1326:( 1267:( 1260:. 1245:Y 1228:) 1220:( 1203:( 1173:( 1151:) 1143:( 1100:) 1092:( 1051:( 1021:) 1013:( 981:( 957:Y 937:( 856:( 803:( 799:e 758:( 715:( 693:( 661:( 638:( 603:( 600:R 596:I 592:V 578:) 570:( 536:) 528:( 511:( 508:R 504:I 500:V 448:) 440:( 408:( 341:( 279:) 271:( 222:) 214:( 178:( 109:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.