User talk:Matma Rex

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing my screw-up on the Penny-farthing article. If you have any idea what causes all paragraphs to be stripped off my edits, please message me. Turbotape (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per our discussion on IRC, I'd like your assistance in modifying my .css file so that all non-article pages have a background which is a placid shade of yellow identified as hexcode FF FF EC.

I'd also like to ensure that header text is displayed in boldface, not just larger size. DS (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The css and js you gave me to customize Vector have proven helpful, but not perfect. Here are some more parts I'd like fixed, please:

• the placid yellow background should be in every namespace except articles. Those (and the Main Page) should be white.
• bluelinks should be bright blue, not greyblue
• the relative font sizes of the various elements are wrong (for this, it might be easier to just get the relative sizes used by Classic and copy those)
• the box containing the categories should have a transparent background, not a grey one (and no border!)
• same for the box containing the language links
• the links "edit / watch / move / delete / protect / discuss / history" should be on the left sidebar, not on the top. If they must be enclosed in a box, that box should also have a transparent background with no border
• text in pulldown menus should not have serifs. (Sorry!)

Thanks. DS (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should fix #1. πr² (t • c) 18:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

#4 fixed. #5: I don't see any background or border for the language links. πr² (t • c) 22:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech#Classic_skin_and_CSS may benefit from your contribution. DS (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your post here, I'm guessing you had something to do with moving the section edit links from right to left. Where can I find additional information about this "core change"? Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 18:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm using your VEKiller and it's great, but at some p6oint today the "edit | edit source" nonsense came back. I didn't do anything that might have affected it, I don't think. Just thought you might like to know. ... discospinster _talk 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) discospinster, you know there is a gadget available to disable VE now, right? Preferences → Gadgets → Editing = "Disable VE (top option last I saw)" and there is a userbox too User:Technical_13/Userboxes/Anti-VE. Happy editing!!! Technical 13 (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK great, thanks! ... discospinster _talk 03:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are users who load your userspace version and not the gadget so I have copied the update of MediaWiki:Gadget-oldeditor.js.[1] I hope you don't mind. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For fixing ar-WP Monobook skin, per Klapper request =) Zack (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Progressive Barnstar
		I couldn't find a barnstar that would adequately thank those involved in making the template editor user right RFC a reality, so I created this new one. The Progressive Barnstar recognizes those courageous enough to work towards a vision for change at Wikipedia. Matma Rex, I'm not sure if you're aware, but your suggestion to create a new protection level during your IRC chat with User:Technical 13 was a main inspiration for our taking the RFC in that direction; and I believe that decision is one of the main reasons the RFC is seeing widespread support. Thank you for taking the time to share your ideas. I consider the RFC a success at this point, no matter what the eventual outcome. equazcion (talk) 01:03, 19 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at Template talk:Convert where you notice the good news that migrating convert to other wikis will be much easier when the module is deployed. I'm posting here to let you know that after problems are sorted out here, I would like to assist anyone wanting to use the module at another wiki, and there are a number of funky configuration settings that can be made to aid translation. For an extreme example, check bn:User:Johnuniq/Translation—that was done three months ago so their module is somewhat out of date now. Please let me know if you plan to do anything. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Thanks for the note. I probably won't be doing anyhting myself (not enough time :( ), but I do know we have (or used to have) some half-assed old forked versions of convert at pl.wp. Matma Rex talk 10:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Technology Barnstar
		This barnsar is awarded to Matma Rex for his help on WP:VPT[2] THANK YOU! Igottheconch (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#New_classic_edit_toolbar buttons_no_longer_appear_to_work_in_new_version_on_mediawiki.3F
  Any assistance would be most appreciate kind sir. Thank you in advance and god bless :) Igottheconch (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for catching the error. The tool used to (attempt to) convert the bare URLs was Reflinks, and it still seems to not be functioning properly. The hashes did not appear in the bot-generated preview. I'll post a notice on the toolserver.org board of the malfunction. In the meantime, the article will need a bare URL maintenance template, which I will go ahead and install. Thanks! User:OliverTwisted 09:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it seems to be an IE browser-specific error. When running Reflinks using the Chrome browser, the links which could be converted were done so properly, without any break in syntax. I went ahead and removed the bare URL maintenance template, and allowed the tool to complete the conversion. If you are still seeing hashes, please let me know. --User:OliverTwisted 09:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Matma Rex. We have spoken before at User talk:Wbm1058#Permalinks to diffs -- coming soon to a Wikipedia near you. Thanks for your work on Special:Diff! I'm still getting some usage on Special:Permalink and found a browser-specific quirk when using permalinks that is baffling, though low-priority.

Fully spelled-out URL

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=594059677#101

• Opened in any of the three browsers it goes to the right page and section, as you would expect.

Permalink version of the same thing

Special:Permalink/594059677#101

• Opened in Firefox or Chrome, it goes to the page *and* the section
• Opened in Safari, it only goes to the top of the page. (this is the 'bug' or feature that I'm noticing)

• This was first discussed with User:Wbm1058 at User:EdJohnston/Sandbox.

The #101 is an artificial section name that I created with the anchor tag, though the behavior is the same if you use normal section labels.

In all three browsers you can see the PermaLink expanding into https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=594059677#101 in the status bar, when you hover over the link with the mouse pointer. The tooltips are all the same for the three browsers but they all omit the section anchor. It seems like clicking on the permalink in Safari opens up the tooltip version of the link, not the full version. Maybe this is a pure coincidence, and it's not the real reason.

The machine is Mac OS X 10.9.2

Browsers are Safari 7.0.2 Firefox 27.0.1 Chrome 33.0.1750.117

Let me know if you see anything to do here. I would make a report in Bugzilla if that was a reasonable thing to do. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming that Special:Permalink offers a server-side redirect to the 'full' URL, Safari will drop the fragment at the end (boo! hiss!). Protonk (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Protonk, thanks for looking into this! I guess we shouldn't expect Apple to fix this any time soon. There was even a patch offered in 2009. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, EdJohnston. Is the correct resolution here to make a tracking bug in bugzilla and reference the webkit bug? Haven't worked on WMF projects like this so I don't know how they track platform issues which block local issues. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The impact of this on Wikipedia appears small. I've never filed a bugzilla on a Mediawiki issue so I'm not the best person to ask (User:Matma Rex might know). It might be more logical to contact some WebKit maintainers and see what the prospects are for fixing this. The person who offered the patch in 2009 didn't respond to the follow-up question about testing, so perhaps that's all that would be needed to go further with it. ("Would you be willing to submit a patch with layout tests and a ChangeLog for review? See <http://webkit.org/coding/contributing.html>"). From looking at the code in the patch it's not entirely trivial, so I can see why good testing would be expected. A developer named Alexei Proskuryakov is one of those who commented on the WebKit bug, and he still seems to be an active committer on WebKit. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The end resolution needs to be a patch to webkit but some projects file tracking bugs for issues like this just to dupe new instances or note that the problem is recognized and tracked. Don't know if that's the mediawiki policy or not. Protonk (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I do not understand what you were after, and I most certainly derive no pleasure from having a discussion without a positive outcome. I tried to achieve understanding between us, but it seems clear you are after some sort of "win", and feel I have "won".

Wikipedia is not about winning, there is no battleground. I felt you had not fully understood why it was not a gadget issue, which you should be admitting.

You brought it to my talk page with "Which skins were affected? I don't see any report suggesting that on VPT, nor I have seen them affected when I was investigating this bug [...]" So I explained, and you stated "Vector classic typography" is a gadget, as evidenced by the fact that it is available from the "Gadgets" tab of preferences." That statement is not correct. The whole premise of your argument, and reason for changing the section title was that a skin is a gadget because it is on the gadget tab. That is not true - it is on the "appearance" tab.

You should have said "Sorry, fair enough, I see your point - as it is not on the gadget tab, and people do not know it is a gadget, and as there is no evidence that a skin is a gadget, you were right to call it "skin & gadget"."

More importantly, I would have preferred you to have read my posts and understood them. Perception of something is what matters, I saw you misunderstood why I had called it that, realised it might be a language barrier, and tried to help you understand. I did not expect you to say "Have fun feeling good about having won the discussion", but if that is how you see it I have obviously failed. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you start to think that you are still right, check again. The gadget tab refers solely to the Vector skin, while there were reported issues with at least two other skins (monobook & modern).

What is your purpose with this edit [3]? I identified Rdicerb as another editor and corrected the mistake, as simple as that. You have no right to modify my own comments! Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvesgaspar: I implementing the guidelines described at WP:REDACTED. Matma Rex talk 17:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not reverting a personal attack but correcting a mistake. And nobody had yet answered to my comment when I changed it. Anyway I don't recognize you the right to change my comments. Next time you do it (the third) I will present a formal complaint. As a volunteer MediaWiki developer you should be more carefull with your actions, most especially in the present discussion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alvesgaspar: People have responded to one of the comments you rewrote, please re-read the discussion. I "should be more careful"? Why, exactly? This sounds like a threat. I'm not sure why would you want to complain when you are wrong, but I have more pleasant things to do than fighting you. Matma Rex talk 18:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Matma Rex – it is my understanding that you made a recent change to how redirects are handled. Is it possible that this change could have affected the way Internet Explorer handles updating the position in the page based on the hash that is pushed using history.replaceState.? The reason I ask is that my IE10 no longer takes me to a section of a page when I click on a redirect to a section. Instead, it takes me to the TOP of the page. If I go to the redirect and click on the section link directly, I am then taken to the section. I checked this with Firefox and that browser still works okay in this respect. I opened a discussion, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 129#Redirects to sections, where I give two examples of this. It was there that TheDJ informed me of your update. Again, is there anything you can do to accomplish what you set out to do and to also fix it so that IE will work correctly with redirects to sections? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the edit you requested be made to this interface, for the reasons I've given on its talk page. I'm puzzled as to why you want this change to be made. Can you explain how allowing the creation of very long usernames would benefit Wikipedia? -- The Anome (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments on the redirect-URL related thing that recently came out. When I type in Google maps on search bar, my address bar reads /wiki/Google_maps . Then, one second after, it changes to target's name Google Maps /wiki/Google_Maps . Other redirects could be different, as I type in something in search bar, and sometimes I'll be like "What!? That's what I'm not looking for", as I use the address bar frequently. Could this be fixed, or put into user preferences to update URL or not? Thanks, A Great Catholic Person (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Technical Barnstar
		Dude, you're bloody ridiculous. wctaiwan (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matma Rex, I would like to ask you a question about http://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/157836/. In it.wiki we have two small gadgets ([4] and [5]) to color the links to disambiguation and redirection pages. In this sandbox I have described the "problem": we would like to have the third case ("Aaa") colored as a link to a disambiguation page, not as a link to a redirection page. Do you know if is there an easy way to achieve this behaviour? --Rotpunkt (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! --Rotpunkt (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain whay a comment on one edit somehow labels your "contributions" in general as absurd? That is, I think, an absurd conclusion. As for the edit in question, I considered it absurd that simplifying the syntax was someohow preferable to simplifying the result of the use of the syntax. Looking at the result, it seemed to me that combined image creates an elegant presentation on the page, unlike the juxtaposed boxes you created. There are other cases in which this structure has positive results. For example at the top of the Second Triumvirate page, where it allows a close comparison of images, or on the Bat Creek inscription page, where close comparison of images is part of the function of the illustration. I recently tried to use it on the Love's Labour's Won page, but the result was a mess - because the combined images both comprised text, so the compresson of image-text and dual captions made the whole more difficult to decipher. For that reason I adopted a different format. Overall, I took the view that we should be guided by the visual and legible qualities of the result on the page, rather than the coing used. That why I thought your rationale was absurd. Sorry if you were upset. Paul B (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matma Rex. I see you are the last person to have updated the list at Wikipedia:Database reports/Large non-free files. I was wondering if you could perform another update? I tried to do it myself using your database query as a guide, but appear to have failed, as my query has been running for 15 hours without generating a list. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, following up on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T99431 I am lead to https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/26_septembre_2013#Ordre_alphab.C3.A9tique_des_lettres_accentu.C3.A9es_dans_les_cat.C3.A9gories and fortunately as I can read French I read there information that you changed the Polish Wikipedia so that diacritics and accents can be used in DEFAULTSORT and category sort keys. So should I update AWB to not remove diacritics and accents from DEFAULTSORT and category sort keys for Polish Wikipedia (I'm doing this for the French Wikipedia)? Thanks Rjwilmsi 09:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matma Rex, I see you closed phab:T108727 as resolved, but it still isn't working for me. I'm not really familiar with the process flow. Is there a time lag before it comes out on production WP? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks are stripped in MediaWiki:Cite error references duplicate key now that it's displayed next to the reference. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. Can this be changed or should the message be modified to not use wikilinks? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the fast work but the wikilink is now being stripped again when the pages are purged. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While examining Wikipedia:Help desk#Help:Cite errors/Cite error references duplicate key 2, I found that this produces MediaWiki:Cite error references duplicate key:

<ref name="Buna">Advance to Buna</ref> {{sfn|Blakeley|1956|ps=. Cited in Advance to Buna.<ref name=Buna />}} {{sfn|Blakeley|1956|ps=. Cited in Advance to Buna.<ref name=Buna />}} <references /> 

The error message is hidden in many namespaces at the English Wikipedia but displayed in mainspace. I know there has always been limitations on nested references. This case worked before but should it be disallowed now? It expands to code which may always have been broken when written in expanded form in wikitext:

<ref name="Buna">Advance to Buna</ref> <ref name="FOOTNOTEBlakeley1956">[[#CITEREFBlakeley1956|Blakeley 1956]]. Cited in Advance to Buna.<ref name=Buna /></ref> <ref name="FOOTNOTEBlakeley1956">[[#CITEREFBlakeley1956|Blakeley 1956]]. Cited in Advance to Buna.<ref name=Buna /></ref> <references /> 

PrimeHunter (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

We currently needs some help from CSS specialists to apply the visual results of a poll from 2014 you can currently see >here<.

I'm currently trying make the main page header responsive with local templates ("Modèle:" namespace) and to make so it doesn't use table anymore, but it looks like MediaWiki restrictions make impossible to load the logo background with "background-image". And workarounds I've tried with the help of Dereckson looks like >this<.

Dereckson said on IRC you may be more able than him to help me to fix problems that kept me to make the responsive version looks like the original version that uses a table. Is he right? Could you help us even if it's not on a language of wiki you know, please? I'm getting kinda desperate, here. :( (PS: the test page is currently Utilisateur:Feldo/Brouillon/Titre 2015, templates used can be found >here< and >there< for columns, >here< and >there< for blocks) — Foldo ^(talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldo (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. IKhitron (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matma Rex. I was wondering if you could run the above database report again if you have time? Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Sure, done. I just visited quarry:query/853, logged in and clicked "Submit Query" and it was done in a few minutes. Matma Rex talk 17:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I sent you some email. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Matma Rex. Please see https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Wikimania_hackathon_showcase_2017 where item 12 is new. This is basically a report of your coding work, so please check to see if it's correct! The one-page description is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YauXJWoA4kQBwDJqiTdd5-OH6X36fIwirCUSarQaNjs/edit?usp=sharing. Do you want to help present this? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Urbanec: Thanks for the note, but I think I won't be able to participate this year. Sorry! Matma Rex talk 14:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since WMF has recently dropped IE8 and other SVG-less browsers, do you think per previous discussion adding SVG icons we can drop those PNGs? --Izno (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Yeah, they probably can be dropped. Matma Rex talk 19:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your well-meaning edit sorting the ranks of active sumo wrestlers has scrambled them and I am at a loss as to how to fix it. Sorting them puts them all out of order for east and west (east comes first) and their ranking number also doesn't seem to work correctly. No one seemed to notice this until I went in to update for the new rankings that came out today. I would rather just go back to the system I had, but of course that would entail reentering all the updated ranks I already did today, which takes quite a while. I think the problem partly stems that in my system the number and directions "(12 East" etc) was also part of the sorting, and your doesn't cover those particulars. Again, it was in good faith I know, but please next time check to see if your edit actually works the way it was intended before going live. FourTildes (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I figured out to make the ranks sort correctly by reduplicating sorting info inside the sortable data changes you made that previously wasn't necessary to sort correctly in my version. So it is working now. The old system worked just fine, but having said that, it is probably better to go with established conventions. Thank you for your well-meant edit, and I learned about how to make sorting values. :) FourTildes (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FourTildes Sorry for causing you trouble! Indeed I didn't realize that the actual text in the table cells mattered for sorting, I thought only the hidden parts were needed. I'm glad you figured out the problem. Feel free to undo my changes if they're annoying, I was hoping that they'd make it easier and not harder to work with that article. Matma Rex talk 14:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine now. You meant well and I ended up learning something new. I was a bit frustrated at first, hence my initial post. No worries. Keep up the good word. FourTildes (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your reply to a post of mine at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. Unfortunately I just now saw it because I never got the notification.

I'm aware of only one other time this has happened to me here, and that was also a WMF member. (Ironically, the discussion was about notifications.) When I then pinged DannyH (WMF) about this, he never responded. Pinging @DannyH (WMF): now as a test and request for input.

Also I don't recall ever getting a notification from any WMF member and couldn't find one example scrolling through my notices. I did however find the confirmation of my ping to DannyH at Village Pump, "Your mention of DannyH (WMF) was sent." the ping he never responded to.

Could you please check to see on your end if you got a confirmation of that ping you sent to me? --DB1729 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DB1729 Hmm, let's see if this mention reaches you? (I'll write on your talk page if you don't respond.) As far as I know there's nothing special about the WMF accounts (and this isn't even a WMF account), so that must be a coincidence.

Unfortunately I can't check for the confirmation of that mention attempt, as I didn't have the failed/successful mention notifications enabled, and enabling them doesn't make them appear for the past attempts. I enabled them for now (but I expect that I'll find them annoying and disable them in the future). Matma Rex talk 00:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got the notification. Yeah, maybe there's nothing to my theory. Thank you for replying and testing it for me! Cheers! DB1729 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-04-24/In the media and other Signpost talk pages, probably due to transclusion issues? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus This one is reported as T259824. Matma Rex talk 12:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this you or is this an imposter? -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 21:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow of the Starlit Sky It's me. Matma Rex talk 21:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. :) -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 21:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page still says you're part of the mw:Editing team, this should probably be updated? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz Thanks, I updated my global user page, but I forgot about the one here. I still work at WMF, just on a different team :) Matma Rex talk 09:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, I'll update the slightly odd wording on the RfC in that case.
I swapped {{speedy}} out for {{Db-u1}}. Looking at global search I think you got 'm all now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Signature wiki markup might be worth a brief look, to see if the circumvention method is expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing Yes, it's no big deal, they probably just used a substituted template in their signature. Matma Rex talk 12:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am wondering if there is a way to generate a list of everyone (on enwiki) with an invalid signature? I know there is the Toolforge report, but it is not a one-to-one match with invalid signatures (e.g. it considers —[[:en:User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[:en:User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> to be a problem, but the actual validator is smart enough to realize the links are not interwikis). (This is, of course, in the hopes of implementing Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: applying signature validation retroactively.) Thanks! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster I'm afraid there isn't a way right now. Is that something you would need to implement the RFC results? I thought that the Toolforge report was considered close enough (I wasn't following the discussion closely, but I got the impression that it has just a few well-understood differences compared to the real thing). Matma Rex talk 00:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world, yes; but if it would be a massive pain to generate such a list then I think we can go with the Toolforge report. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster Hmm, I'll see if I can make MediaWiki do it… Matma Rex talk 00:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are awesome. Thank you so much! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster In case you don't receive Phabricator notifications: I posted the list at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T356168#9503724. Matma Rex talk 19:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	For so quickly generating a list of people with invalid signatures. Thank you so much!! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]