User talk:Kirkburn

Template:DialogueA-B/doc
Hi George! I hope it's okay to directly ask you some questions via the talk page on this wiki! Something weird is happening with Template:DialogueA-B/doc; it kept showing THIS:
 * Retrieved from "http://inkheart.wikia.com/wiki/Template:DialogueA-B/doc?oldid=8233"

at the bottom on the page, and it results in that displaying on the actual template page as well; I've tried deleting and recreating the /doc page altogether, and even modified the content a little bit, but the sentence is still showing. Can you help figuring out what's going on and hopefully remove it?

Also, for the last part of the template, the   part; is there a way to make it as showing a   when clicked but still displaying [src] instead of going to another page? I was really hoping to be able to use the citebook on the source section, but when I tried to do that, it shows something really weird, like:

I would like it to be displayed as:

and should the page have ''', I made it. Everything else, code or script wise, theoretically should be exactly the same as what it is on the Templates Wiki, yet it is not working here. Can you let me know what I'm doing wrong? Thank you so much! -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 02:58, July 1, 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe I spotted the issue: . It looks like it needed the extra code, because that triggers a line-break, which was necessary for the Userbox table code to work. Bit unusual - but seems to work now. Hope this helped! Kirkburn (talk) 21:38, July 1, 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, it is rather odd, but thanks for fixing it! New related question... Since the template seems functional now, I wanted to use it to replace what I previously had, but I realized there's a slight difference, e.g.:

The first one is the existing one, the second one is created by using the use box template, the one I was about to replace the first one with; note that besides the font size and the thin black borderline (both aren't issues to me), the second userbox is slightly indented when there's no other code before it telling it to do so.... For some reason I thought this has something to with the css so I modified it a bit (see here) but that does not seem to be the case... When you have time... Can you help getting rid of the extra space? Thank you so much!! -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 22:30, July 1, 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay... this is a bit freaky o___O, because when I was previewing, the indent was really obvious, but after publishing it and actually seeing it on this talk page... It's gone! And as I'm editing this message and previewing the whole thing, now the indent is also gone on the preview! It's really weird because I have the same thing on another editing page (has yet to publish) and the preview there is also giving me the indent... I guess this is one of those things that one'd have to actually publish to see the actual look? I think I'm good for now! -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 22:37, July 1, 2015 (UTC)


 * Alrighty :) Kirkburn (talk) 15:56, July 3, 2015 (UTC)

Seemingly another problem with userboxes
Hi George! I've removed the semi unrelated post as I promised, since I have indeed gotten a reply from a Staff. But while my previous post (before its removal) was on your talk page; I noticed something very bizarre happening, so I decided to tested out with this post, and it's happening again; I'm not sure why, but this section is following the alignment of the userboxes; I presume the ones that's using userbox is the one having problem, because I've used the one that's not using it on my profile... but then again, I also didn't indent it so I can't be sure. When you have time, can you take a look why the indent thing is happening? (I feel like indents are going to be the death of me and this wiki... really not sure why issues with it keeps on happening) -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 20:21, July 9, 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to be related to putting Userbox in a table, then indenting that table. I'm not sure why, but it seems to cause all following stuff to indent as well. I strongly suspect is it an issue with how Userbox is coded, but unfortunately, I'm not spotting any specific cause. To fix the issue here, I've simply un-indented the table - it seems to have solved the issue for now. Very odd! Kirkburn (talk) 20:10, July 13, 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki
Hi George!! I just saw the JS reviewing process going live, and I'm sure you are probably getting tons of questions at the moment. I'm like most people, happy that we get to adjust the JS settings again; however, I have a question that's not directly related JS but related to the lockdown; it seems like admins still cannot create pages under the MideaWiki namespace; I was wondering if there's a way to let a wiki able to have their own FLAGcounter if a page like MediaWiki:Flagcounter cannot be created?

-- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 20:37, October 16, 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that's not easy to allow at the moment. For that specific item, we'd be a little concerned about privacy issues, but in general: we do like the cool stuff users used verbatim for, but security concerns take priority. Our work is an ongoing process - further updates are likely. Kirkburn (talk) 20:26, October 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh... um, is privacy issue caused by the flag counter related to security concerns? I mean, I know it's adding flag by the viewers' IP addresses, but it only display that there's viewers from those regions, we just know that "oh, someone from this country viewed", but we wouldn't know exactly who, like which user/anon, they are. So like... unless they revealed it themselves by saying stuff like "I'm the Taiwanese person the flag counter keeps picking up" (that is me, btw lol), to my little knowledge, everyone's actual location is pretty much still secretive? I could be completely wrong though. Still, thanks for the explanation! At least I know I don't have to worry about it at the moment as the function is currently not accessible. -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 20:38, October 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the slow response - busy week. Security and privacy concerns are essentially separate, but both come under the broad heading of "Terms of Use concerns". The issue isn't so much about being able to see the flags themselves, but the adding of a script that would allow an external service to collect data about our visitors. We don't have control over what they do with that data, which can be a problem for both us and those visitors. It's not a serious problem - but certainly a concern. Kirkburn (talk) 10:51, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

Editor for template pages
Hi there George! I'm not sure if I just missed some announcement about this, but is there a way for the editor of template pages to NOT ALL be what it's currently like? (css? not sure if it has a specific name). I first noticed it when infoboxes where only advised to be converted to portable ones; when it does get converted, that's when the editor changed to a different type; and every other template pages still has the regular editor. All of the sudden, now all templates use the specific editor! Can there be some sort of preference to let users decide whether they want that kind of editor? The reason for this is the the old source editor provides "Show list of used templates" option on the templates section; sometimes within templates there's still TONS of templates incorporated! With the new editor, it's really harder for people who aren't as experienced to study what's making the template work. Please consider it? Thanks!! -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 23:47, October 31, 2015 (UTC)


 * This is now covered by Help:Syntax highlighting. Does this help? Do you want to keep the basic syntax highlighter active, but just disable the template one? Kirkburn (talk) 21:54, November 2, 2015 (UTC)


 * Uh, I don't think that's what I meant? I think syntax highlighting is useful, but I'm talking about the editor itself; for some reason, now all editors for template namespace is identical to the editor used for MediaWiki:Common.css/.js/Wikia.css/.js; the ones with yellow background and numbers on the left hand side... If that makes any sense? Like on the help page, it says "CSS, JS, template and Lua module pages have a more advanced syntax highlighter active.", while I do wish to have syntax highlighter active, I just wish templates wouldn't be using the same editor as CSS but the regular one... (I'm really bad at explaining) -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 22:45, November 2, 2015 (UTC)


 * It's fine, I understand you. We did indeed expand the advanced editor to template pages, and the syntax highlighting preference controls both types of editor highlighting now ... but it's something we're open to changing. What kind of problems do you have with the updated template editor in general? Kirkburn (talk) 22:52, November 2, 2015 (UTC)


 * It's mostly very trivial stuff, but on the long run, I still think it would accumulate into a rather big inconvenience.
 * The first thing that made me realized I prefer the old one, is the lack of the edit Toolbar and the "more" option MediaWiki:Edittools; those are shortcuts and I didn't realize they really do make inserting certain things faster; for instance, now if I'm editing a template and needs to use ; I would have to type it out myself, instead of being able to just click it. It's sound sooooooo insignificant, but it's also like bold and italic have to be manually typed and cannot be done by selecting text then clicking button.
 * I don't think the link suggestion still works on that type of editor? And that could be a bit hindering when editing navigational or portal templates, sometimes people simply don't remember the exact spelling of someone's name, or if the title of something you intend to link to is super long; it's just easier when the links show up after typing the first few letters.
 * Unlike regular article that has a restricted area and text will automatically line-break into the next line, confining in the editing area; the advance editor seems considerably infinite and just goes on and on; right now, I am able to scroll left and right to see stuff that went outside the area, but I swear just a few hours ago, I was unable to do that, and THAT really caused me a lot of problem cuz I had to highlight a word and move my mouse to the right and drag to see the remaining stuff.
 * It's just inconvenient when editing templates that can almost pass off as "articles" (for all the reasons mentioned, links, short cut not working, etc). For example, a master profile template created at Community Central, or panels to be used the home page.... stuff like that.
 * And really, it goes back to the unable to see "Show list of used templates" option...


 * Those are my thoughts.... Thanks for listening/reading!!!
 * -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 23:18, November 2, 2015 (UTC)


 * We appreciate it! Those are pretty fair concerns and, fortunately, I think they are all roughly on our list already - but I'll add your comment to our review list as they really help expand on the issues. Thanks again! Kirkburn (talk) 17:19, November 5, 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing! I'm sure the advance editor is benefitting some people, so I'm not asking it to be changed back for everyone; I just wish that like how users can choose what editor to use for articles, the regular editor could at least be an option for template pages and it's up to users to decide what editor to use. Hope that part is clear! Thanks again!!
 * -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 22:32, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

Hi George! I was super happy to see the technical update last night, and am happy to see regular editor for editing some templates already! However, I'm not sure if it's because I'm still not fully awake, but um... What "template type" should we choose for "template documentations"?? The ones with "/doc". I would have chosen "Data" but it's not used for article pages, so that leaves "Non-article"... I guess, the more I look at it, that one does look most suitable... Grrrr... Yup, I def. feel like I'm not fully awake yet, but since documentations usually have quite a number, is it possible to add one to the given examples? Thanks!

-- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 20:21, December 1, 2015 (UTC)


 * Documentation templates would indeed be "non-article". :) We're looking at how we can expand the classification feature in the future, but we're primarily interested in the types of templates used on articles at the moment. Kirkburn (talk) 17:39, December 3, 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay! Thanks for the clarification!!! =D -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 19:52, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

Content Moderators
Hi there George; I've recently promoted User:Katherine Rebekah to a Content Moderator; according to w:Help:User rights, there's supposedly a "CONTENT MODERATOR" label showing up next to user name of the user profile, but as you can see it's currently not working for User:Katherine Rebekah, and I don't know anyone else with this user group, so I don't know if this is normal, like if it's all across Wikia or just here that I should send it as a bug found? Thanks! -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 00:26, January 21, 2016 (UTC)
 * Heya. It's a missing feature, essentially - we've asked the team to look into implementing a 'Content Mod' tag for user profiles, but I don't have a specific ETA for it being added. Kirkburn (talk) 14:09, January 21, 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay! Thanks for letting me know that it's not something happening specifically here! BTW, do you happen to have the time to review what I wrote to you at w:c:bookshub:Thread:12573 back in December? There's 4 images weirdly being identified as being used on the main page of the Books Hub, when I really don't see them anywhere on it; was just wondering if it's safe to delete them (they are all duplicates of other images uploaded at the Hub) -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 00:38, January 22, 2016 (UTC)


 * Huh, not sure how I missed that. I've posted a reply over there :) Kirkburn (talk) 12:58, January 22, 2016 (UTC)