When reverting edits, if the user's talk page is set to popup (or whatever), it'd be nice to have a list of template messages to insert - sort of like when choosing a speedy delete tag. Just choose your message, hit ok and have it insert that message at the bottom and save all at once. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I had the idea to automatically run twinklewarn, but hasn't gone further on that. _→AzaToth 21:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, some better descriptions for the (massive number of) templates would be nice. Especially for new users of Twinkle and/or vandal fighers from other projects (such as myself; on en.wb, we have something like 6 templates to choose from because we have way less vandalism, so remembering what 100 templates say is tough, and the descriptions aren't terribly helpful). – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The instructions at WP:UAA have recently been updated to ask that reports include which of the 5 key reasons to report a username is being invoked. It would probably make life more straightforward for people if the Twinkle reports were updated to include this. The main thing is to include one of the words promotional, disruptive, offensive, confusing or misleading (I think those are the five - check WP:U to make sure). SamBC(talk) 16:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle is still encouraging people to make reports that look like the following: "Violation of username policy because: Consists of a lengthy or apparently random sequence of characters". This wastes a lot of people's time on UAA, because the username policy says no such thing -- "apparently random sequence of characters" is one of many examples which are explicitly stated to not be reasons in themselves. Can this please be fixed? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It states: "Usernames that consist of a confusingly random or lengthy sequence of characters, e.g. "ghfjkghdfjgkdhfjkg" or "aaaaaaaaaaaa".", it might have been changed since I added it, but not much. _→AzaToth 15:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I'm referring to. Twinkle apparently encourages its users to use examples, such as the one you and I are quoting, as reasons to block, which the username policy explicitly warns against. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:DPR, admins who delete pages as the result of an AFD, MFD, TFD, or CFD discussion should paste a link to the discussion in the deletion summary box so users can see it in the deletion log. Unfortunately, admins currently cannot do this as Twinkle instead automatically generates the deletion summary, "Speedy deleted per (CSD g6), deleting page per result of AfD discussion". I am not sure how you would implement a solution to this. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also recommend that you do not have Twinkle automatically generate a link like [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article]] because there have been a number of articles that have gone through several AFD nominations before eventually being deleted, like the infamous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two alternatives, either use the same algorithm TwinkleXFD is using, or require additional input before deletion. _→AzaToth 15:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we add an open proxy option on ARV? Thanks,Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 01:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC).

P.S. The cleanup tags and welcome templates are nice ideas :)

Seconded, that would be nice, with an evidence field? I just did this one and didn't realize that there was no way to automate it. It would be a neat feature. • Lawrence Cohen 13:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This probably won't happen very often, but it just happened to me so I thought I'd ask for it. When tagging pages for CSD, the script currently checks for other {{db}} tags that are already on the page. It does not, however, check for {{prod}} (more specifically, {{dated prod}}) or {{afd}} tags. Just now, I was tagging a page for speedy deletion and found that someone had added a prod tag before TW finished the edit. The script didn't notice this, and so the page ended up with a CSD and a PROD, and the author got two deletion notifications.

Anyway, would it be possible to add in a couple lines of code to check for other deletion tags, and then ask the user if they still want to continue, similar to how the warning script checks for warnings issued in the last few minutes? Like I said, it's not likely to happen too often, but it should help to prevent some confusion for when this does occur. Since TW tends to largely ignore edit conflicts, it's bound to happen again. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see I got here a little late, but I would also like to see this. I haven't had an experience with it personally, but I don't want to in the future... Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 17:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no fundamental reason not to tag such an article for speedy deletion, if it meets a CSD criteria. —Random832 15:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is for recently created articles, to help avoid stepping on other people's toes, and to avoid creating the impression that an article will get hammered with db, afd AND prod tags all at once. Recent changes patrol goes on at an extremely quick pace to keep up with the vandalism, and this script is handy for people who want to automate these actions. --causa sui ^talk 04:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just nominated a page for deletion, and it replaced the previous discussion with the new one. I think there should be some code that checks for previous noms, and then creates a new page for each nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It should do, thus this is a bug or just something fishy. _→AzaToth 14:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Could the popup on the blue rollback button on diff pages please be disabled? Right now, the only one-click solution to reverting an edit is to tag it as vandalism, and that may not be accurate. Besides, if somebody wants to leave a reason but doesn't decide to use the green AGF button for whatever reason, they can hit the "restore this version" button. The other request is that "actions indicate a vandalism-only account" be re-enabled for ARV on anonymous users: it helps to tag new editors who have partaken only in vandalism, or an obviously static IP which is vandalizing the same set of articles after block releases. Thanks! east.718 at 04:10, 10/19/2007

"Vandalism-only account" does not apply to IPs, period. Another button to specify the pattern you described, though, might be useful. —Random832 15:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to disable the autowarn feature, and instead just go to the users talk page in another tab, like before? I prefer to see the users talk page to check for other notices, check contribs, etc. and since I do not actually warn the user personally, I don't see it automatically. It's also bad if an article has already been tagged for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed, and I tag it again, generating an identical warn. I also wonder why, given your position on only using UW warn notices, why we don't use the actual warn notice for creating inappropriate pages. As a side note, I recall reading earlier about a way to reduce the reload time by adding something to my monobook. What was it again? Thanks. i ^said 01:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I also don't like Twinkle automatically warning users for a CSD, for the same reasons given. What about a configuration setting to enable or disable it? --Mysdaao ^talk 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of this being done? I (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

After TW reverts vandalism, wouldn't it be better for TW to load a page's history rather than the article itself? That way, we can tell immediately if there have been any mistakes in the reversion.- TwoOars (Rev) 14:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally would think it would be ideal to load the Diff. of the reversion (rather than the history page). - Rjd0060 21:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the diff would be best. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe make it a configuration option? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

These all would be great config options. Either the diff or the history would be best for me. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, after warning a user, go to their contribs instead of the talk page. There's no need to check in on the edit, but you should prolly check for un-reverted vandalism in their contribs. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But then how would you warn them? If there was a warn tab in addition to an ARV tab, how would you know what level to give them? I agree with opening the history or the diff, but there shouldn't be these problems. It should warn you if any conflict occurs (see my bug report). J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 00:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, I usually delete CSD candidates instead of marking them for CSD first. The problem is, the creator then receives no notification that the article they created has been deleted. Is it possible to get Twinkle to notify the creator of an article when it's speedily deleted, as well as when a page is just marked for speedy deletion? Cheers, Waggers 14:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just bumping that one, I agree that would be useful, at least for G12 and A7. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this would be very useful for admins. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bump. This would be great. Brianga (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Even better would be the option to replace stuff. So using twinkledelimages.js, you can have the option to a) delete b) unlink image or replace with some other image (ie if you found a replacement on Commons). This is the bigger part. And then the same thing for anything - not just images. So it would be automagical fixing of links for when you move a page or if a page gets transwikied or something where you want to unlink/have all links to a page link to somewhere else. That's prolly a huge project. But the first part could be doable with sufficient bribery, right?? – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, twinkledelimages should work from an image description page, though there will only be one image to delete & unlink. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to enable Twinkle to add the {{copyvio}} tag to an article, then automatically list the page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems? Unless I'm missing something obvious, it seems that I still have to do this manually. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box 16:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have this feature. I'm not sure how it would be implemented in Twinkle, though. Friendly already has a tagging tab, so perhaps it would be better to ask Ioeth to add it there? Twinkle already has almost too many tabs... Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 17:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add support for the {{db-reason}} tag? Sometimes I may need to do a speedy for a reason other than what's offered on the CSD menu, but I still want the autonotification and all that. ViperSnake151 20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would find this useful as well. As a side note (and perhaps I should start a new section for this), having more of the CSD criteria available in the menu would be quite handy. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 20:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I third this request. Just had a CSD for an article that was a repost of another article (they literally did a find and replace, even the pics were the same). Padillah (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So we know which one to select next. If there's some way to search for the last hidden comment (which shows the name of the template) and display it in the warn box as "Last warning given was uw-delete3." – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[Smacking forehead] Now why didn't I think to suggest this? Kind of a "duh" feature, but I never thought to ask for it. [Smacks forehead again] Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 03:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the timestamp for that warning. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have though about it, but the question is how and when to parse it. _→AzaToth 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point there. I'd say filter for the last "]]", but lots of users' sigs (mine and yours, even) don't end with a wikilink, so that's a problem. If only I knew some regex... Since the timestamp is almost always at the end of a line, especially with vandalism warnings, I think it would be safe to filter for regex here$. The "(UTC)" part would come in handy, I think, though it will break if wiki switches to another time zone (highly unlikely). Is there a way to write a regexp to filter for the pattern xx:xx, (x)x [A-Za-z] xxxx (UTC), where "x" is a numerical digit, and the "x" in parentheses is an optional match? I'm just brainstorming here. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 05:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Would getting the hidden comment (ie name of the template) and going back until you hit the last few characters of the template itself (since we know what each one is) you can take everything after the template ends - that'll give you the user who warned them, the timestamp and the template used. It'll require writing a rule for each template though. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When reverting (or AGF reverting IIRC), comments added in the popup are given an initial capital letter, but in the edit summary they are prepended with a semi-colon, so the capitalization is usually ungrammatical. example Can the forcing of initial capital be turned off here? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have mentioned previously, please can the inclusion of {{tfd}} for regular deletion (not speedy) via Wikipedia:Templates for deletion not be wrapped in noincludes automatically as this is not generally the desired behaviour, as the tfd notice should, in most cases, be visible in transclusions of the template. As this is not always the case (such as for temlpates to be subst'd), can the inclusion of noincludes be presented as an option during the process? Thanks, mattbr 15:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible for twinkle to automatically warn vandals once reverted? This means that only 1 click would be required to warn a vandal if this is enabled. For instance if enabled and I revert a vandal, It automatically reverts the vandalism and warns the vandal on their user talk page. It would check to see which level of warning the editor received last and then depending on when it was received would either warn the vandal again or automatically report the vandal to AIV board. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This would be quite hard to implement, and, if you know VandalProof, is not always accurate ;) Tiddly-Tom 19:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Replace all the twinkle javascript in your monobook.js with:

 importScript('User:AzaToth/morebits.js');
 importScript('User:Oxymoron83/twinklefluff.js');
 importScript('User:Oxymoron83/twinklewarnauto.js');
 importScript('User:AzaToth/twinklearv.js');
 importScript('User:Oxymoron83/aivreporthelper.js');
 importScript('User:AzaToth/twinklespeedy.js');
 //importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkleimage.js');
 importScript('User:AzaToth/twinklediff.js');
 importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkleprotect.js');
 importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkleprod.js');
 importScript('User:AzaToth/twinklexfd.js');

TwinkleConfig = {
       revertMaxRevisions              :       50,
       userTalkPageMode                :       'tab',
       showSharedIPNotice              :       false,
       openTalkPage                    :       [ 'agf', 'norm', 'vand', 'blank', 'source', 'spam' ],
       openTalkPageOnAutoRevert        :       false,
       openAOLAnonTalkPage             :       false,
       summaryAd                       :       "",
       deletionSummaryAd               :       "",
       protectionSummaryAd             :       "",
       watchWarnings                   :       false,
       watchSpeedyPages                :       [ 'g1', 'g10' ],
       watchProdPages                  :       true,
       openUserTalkPageOnSpeedyDelete  :       [ 'g1', 'g2', 'g3', 'g8', 'g10', 'g11', 'g12', 'a1', 'a3', 'a7', 'i3', 'i4', 'i5', 'i6', 'i7', 'u3', 't1' ],
       watchRevertedPages              :       [ ],
       markRevertedPagesAsMinor        :       [ 'agf', 'norm', 'vand', 'torev', 'blank', 'source', 'spam' ],
       deleteTalkPageOnDelete          :       false,
       markWarningsAsMinor             :       true,
       markAIVReportAsMinor            :       true,
       markSpeedyPagesAsMinor          :       true,
       markProdPagesAsMinor            :       true,
       confirmUsernameToAIV            :       true,
       offerReasonOnNormalRevert       :       false,
       orphanBacklinksOnSpeedyDelete   :       {orphan:false}

Make sure you include the }; at the end. You can then change the preferences. It will only auto warn IPs. The level of warning is determined by warnings previously received, the type is determined by what button you press (you will understand what I mean once installing it). If IPs go over a recent level 4 warning, you will be given the option to automatically report to AIV. Hope this helps, Tiddly-Tom 07:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would love to be able to customise the rollback tabs to change the AFG one to 'Test' as lots of the edits done are in fact tests and not vandalism. Edit summery displayed: Reverted x test edits by y using TW. Tiddly-Tom 19:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you add a feature to twinklespeedy that automatically marks a new page as patrolled when it's tagged for speedy deletion using Twinkle? It could be a checkbox similar to the "notify if possible" option. The checkbox should only be visible when tagging unpatrolled pages. It'd really help the new patrolling feature catch on if you made it a part of Twinkle like this. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Second that, I was just about to suggest it myself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Came here to suggest the same! ~Eliz81^(C) 06:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good feature. Oysterguitarist 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Would be usefull ;) Tiddly-Tom 07:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was also going to request this feature :) Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Piling on. This would be an immense help at new page patrol --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

+1. xenocidic (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also appreciate that. TheMile (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Recently, my career technology teacher deleted Firefox, saying "it slows down the computer". Now in my school, I can only use it in my history class, on which I downloaded Firefox. My language teacher has Firefox, but she doesn't let me use her computer. At home, I have a Wii console, and it is powered by Opera. Therefore, I can't use it on my home computer, (which has IE 7) and in my computer class, (which has IE 6 SP2). Can you at least try to add IE support? Thanks, Dalekusa 16:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I, too, would find IE compatibility at least somewhat useful. Be that as it may, I might suggest a passionate attempt to prove to the teacher in question that Firefox does not slow down the computer, and is in fact more secure than Internet Explorer. You never know where you'll get with that. (Though my attempts to convince a teacher to use my personal email address (Gmail) instead of the horrid school system failed miserably...) I suggest it mainly because IE support is probably not on AzaToth's priority list, AFAIK. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to try portable firefox. Its a version of firefox that is self contained so you can put it on a flash drive and run it off of there. It doesn't write anything to the registry or add anything to the system like the regular firefox does, so its ideal to the problems you are running into. You can get it from here.

it's theoretically impossible to make it work under IE. _→AzaToth 21:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How? Dalekusa 00:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalekusa (talk • contribs)

Just get Firefox, which is a much better browser. M$ are notorious for being non-compliant with standards and being generally insecure. I'm suspecting this will be a WONTFIX. MER-C 06:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with MER-C on this one. I personally use IE only when absolutely necessary (read: sites that don't work in Firefox). Coding for IE is a pain, as I know first-hand, and none of us really wants to put AzaToth through that, do we? He's such a nice guy; he wrote Twinkle once, but asking him to do it twice would be too much IMO. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 07:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to download anything on my computer. My Wii doesn't let me download anything. Lupin's codes work on IE, so why doesn't he do the job? Dalekusa 16:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalekusa (talk • contribs)

Because coding for IE isn't easy, it's not fun, and can be a royal pain in the nether parts. This is because it doesn't follow published standards so you're forced to guess what will work. Tell Microsoft to support web standards instead and twinkle will automatically start working. henrik•talk 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft? Support standards (besides their own broken ones)? Not in 100 years... As I said, IE compatibility would be mildly useful, but most 'pedia nerds I've talked to use Firefox, so it's moot. Especially considering the coding issues (why does Microsoft have to do everything differently?) Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 18:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what would be cool? If there was a firefox extension containing all the best wikipedia tools, like Twinkle, AVT, popups, etc. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 00:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Might be a good idea there; kind of like Better Gmail, eh? It would have to be regularly updated, though, and updates would have to come from an SSL connection to work in the upcoming Firefox 3. I dunno, though; I kind of like the monobook.js thing. That way, the scripts follow me. I just reminded myself that I should probably wrap all my stuff in a conditional no-IE thing to stop the scripts from running in it... Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 04:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

At present CSD G11 adds {{db-spam}}, and these often end up disputed "because it isn't spam".

It would be better to use {{db-ad}} instead.

Mayalld (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

{{db-ad}} just redirects to {{db-spam}}, so what would be the point? Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 18:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the creator of these adverts tend to latch on to the word "spam" in the template, and argue that it isn't spam. I suspect that they wouldn't argue quite so much if what was there was {{db-ad}} Mayalld 15:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just installed firefox so I can use Twinkle, and I've copied some of the extra features into my monobook js page, but one query: Does twinkle have a library of citation templates, neutrality desputes etc. or just the warning and the speedy deletion tags?

Thanks, (and by the way Twinkle is excellent, I'm reverting and warning about 6 times faster than with LUPIN)

Cf38 (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. But I think there is a script which either does that or could be modified to do that. I'm betting there's a customizable user-warning script, which you could hack so it actually gives you citation templates etc instead of user warnings, and also make the tab appear on article pages instead of on user/user talk pages. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a script with a lot of article maintenance and problem templates called Friendly. It's based on the same underlying libraries as Twinkle. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In User:AzaToth/twinklexfd.js, it would be nice if an option were added for UCFD. It should be an easy job, as the code would be nearly identical to that of CFD. Overall, great job! — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the ol' UCFD... There is one person responsible for the exclusion of UCFD from twinkle, and it isn't me :) _→AzaToth 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

When requesting page protection, it would be nice if there were another option under the "Full Protection"; something like "User talk of an indefinitely blocked user", but only used if the user is being disruptive after their block. I know we have one for banned users, but obviously there is a difference. A lot of users, when they are indef blocked, are disruptive on their talk page, making attacks, abusing templates (specifically helpme and unblock templates -- after they've already been denied an unblock). What I currently do is use the banned user option, however I state that the user isn't banned, just indef blocked. I could keep doing that, but TW encourages a certain level of laziness, so... - Rjd0060 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than opening a separate window for warning vandals, maybe it should open in a new tab. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a configuration option; please read the documentation. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I love how, when in the image namespace, the image reasons are automatically on the top. Is there any way to do this with categories, userpages, and templates? It would make life a little simpler. =) Thanks! нмŵוτнτ 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

At WP:NPPLOG, it says:

What to mark as patrolled

• Any page that is tagged for speedy deletion, so people do not waste time reviewing the same page multiple times.

etc.

Could you make TWINKLE automatically mark any such page as patrolled? Od Mishehu 07:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding my support to this request (and others further up the page). I find that up to 50% of the unpatrolled new pages that I look at already have a speedy deletion tag on them. I suspect many of these will have been reviewed by Twinkle users, because when I tag such a page with Twinkle the blue link to allow me to then mark it as patrolled disappears. Instead I have to go back to New Pages, click on the article again, then finally hit the 'mark as patrolled' blue link. 3 more clicks - no wonder lots of people forget/can't be bothered to do it! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be thrilled if the default action for admins using the CSD tab was set to mark, not delete (or if this could be set in the config). As it is, if you mess up and don't check the box, you delete a page you had intended to have another set of eyes look at. If the default was to mark, and you mess up, the worst that happens is the page is marked and you have another shot at deleting it. --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a feature already or not, but I'm wondering if there's a way to disable the automatic adding of pages edited with Twinkle to my watchlist. If it's not a feature, it would be a great addition. Thanks. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 18:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried changing the configuration?--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea, it's a difficult problem, as there are three different options, but only one boolean value to set them. _→AzaToth 13

06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, see line watchSpeedyPages - you get to decide which speedy criteria get added to your watchlist. I, personally, have nearly all of them - if you don't want to watchlist any, just remove the criteria from that line in your personnal configuration. Od Mishehu 06:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like the option of leaving a {{subst:uw-selfrevert}} warning. I patrol a lot of articles that draw a lot of self reverting vandals, and it would save me a lot of time if I could use Twinkle to warn them rather than having to type it all out by hand. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is available under the single issue notices in the first drop down menu. Hope this helps, Tiddly-Tom 07:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I had never noticed that before, thank you very much! :) faithless (^speak) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to add an option to add the schoolblock template from the warn function. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't use Twinkle, and have no plans to use it in the near future. However, a small problem has come to my attention that I would like to mention. Another user used Twinkle to delete an article for CSD G12 (copyright violation), which is well and good. However Twinkle all of the back links. The problem with this is that G12, as a criterion, has nothing to whether or not the topic should be a topic. In my view, the existence of a text to plagiarize makes it more likely, not less that the topic should have an article. Not being familiar with Twinkle, is this a feature that can be toggled on and off by the user? If not, could it be made so? Dsmdgold (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a checkbox right in the pop-up window. You might want to drop a note to the admin who orphaned the backlinks.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad to here it can be toggled. I will drop the admin a note. Dsmdgold (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the default setting should be to exclude G12 from the orphanBacklinksOnSpeedyDelete parameter - usually if there's a copyvio, it means that the subject is notable enough to create a legitimate article about. Od Mishehu 08:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that something that can be done to the software, or is it something that each admin would have to remember to do each time? Dsmdgold (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

When reverting vandalism, TW reverts all the previous consecutive edits for that user. However, not all of the edits might be vandalism. --David Broadfoot (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why edits made with TW are the responsibility of the user, not the tool, nor the tool's author. This feature exists in the "revert to this revision" link when viewing diffs. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what Dave is asking is could it be created as an option when twinkle says there are multiple edits could an option to specify how may are reverted be added (with the default of all). Would be very useful for example if a teacher has cleaned up some problems and the next user on that IP is the student who caused them. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to be able to see a preview of the warning message before it is posted. For example, I meant to post a warning about unconstructive edits that were not blatant vandalism, but the word "vandalism" was in the eventual message. --David Broadfoot (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I humbly request a button that would carry out the post-WP:CFD functions of moving, renaming and deleting categories. Thanks! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

AWB has this function already. There's even a CfD plugin. Re-implementing it in JavaScript would likely be tedious. I believe that you, as an administrator, should be able to use AWB without adding your name to the CheckPage (if not, you can add yourself). Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 23:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Db-A7}} is now operational as a generic template to include all things mentioned in CSD A7. It should be incorporated into Twinkle ASAP. -- ALLSTARecho 01:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

can you add something for thanking IP addresses that have reverted vandalism to more encourage people to revert vandalism? Please and thank-you! Sincerely, Sir Intellegence - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 04:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This might be more appropriate for Friendly... IMHO. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 08:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(split from discussion on native rollback below)Another thing I'd like to request is a another tab for viewing diffs that you could click to show you the differences between that users edits and the current edit. For example in an edit situation such as this:

1. (cur) (last) 21:15, 9 January 2008 67.173.80.32 (Talk) (8,500 bytes) (→Plot summary) (rollback | undo)
2. (cur) (last) 21:14, 9 January 2008 67.173.80.32 (Talk) (8,499 bytes) (→Plot summary) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 10:27, 5 December 2007 129.173.188.110 (Talk) (8,446 bytes) (→Plot summary) (undo)

Rather than having to load history then click (cur) you could just the button while viewing the diff. I have found the since and since mine functions to be very useful and am very grateful they were added. I would imagine that doing something like this shouldn't be to hard as I would guess that sincemine does the same kind of thing.--Nn123645 (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if there might be a way to implement the native rollback function that was just implemented from the non-admin rollback proposal, for rollback rather than the pysdo-rollback that Twinkle uses now. The main thing I would like to ask for is a way to open the talk page automatically. That is one thing that is lost by using the [rollback] link in the text. You have to click on the user talk page manually, copy and paste the title of the article into the article name field, then select the warning template you want to give, then click submit. Because of all the user intervention required using the [rollback] link it takes the same or less time to do it with pysudo-rollback. This causes the efficiency advantage of having native rollback to be lost because of the user intervention required.

[moved Since other diff request to different section] --Nn123645 (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. The redirect-to-talk-page thingy especially, at least, would be quite useful. Otherwise using my newly aquired rollback would slow me down, rather than speed me up. Gscshoyru (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

MW rollback should be used if the user has +sysop or +rollbacker; not sure how that check is to be done. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The page header contains a JavaScript array of the user's groups, named wgUserGroups... Could check in that array for the rollback group. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to mention that native rollback should probably only be used on the Rollback (VANDAL) action, to allow for edit comment on AGF and normal reverts. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 07:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're in the rollback group there's a link already there. pic Q ^{T C} 09:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, misread the comment Q ^{T C} 09:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

MW rollback can be used for anything except "revert to this version" and can still use a custom edit summary by appending &summary= (the only difference would be behind-the-scenes performance). – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know about that URL parameter; thanks for mentioning it! Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I suggest that the native rollback be used for all 3 Twinkle rollbacks (AGF, normal, and vandalism), using the same custom summaries that Twinkle normally uses (with the prompt for AGF and normal rollbacks and none for vand rollbacks). In fact, it'd probably be possible to keep Twinkle exactly the same on the surface but have it use native rollback for people in the sysop or rollbacker groups, making it work much faster and more smoothly. Opening the user talk page automatically is an important part of Twinkle, and should stay as it is. For people with rollback who just want to rollback without opening the talk page, there's always the regular, non-TW rollback button. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You could have 'use native-rollback' as a user prefrence in the config. Tiddly-Tom 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There could be a preference, but wouldn't it be more user-friendly in the long run to detect rollback ability automatically? Perhaps with the option to override if the script isn't detecting your particular situation correctly. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is originally what I was thinking though I didn't mention it in my original comment. For simplicity sake I think it should probably be a setting, unless Aza could get it working to where it can autodetect, though I'm not sure how you could do that, because, to my noobish understading, you'd have to have it querry Special:listusers every time you'd want to rollback a page, unless you could have it saved as a cookie or something. --Nn123645 (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also the option to disable opening the talk page in TwinkleConfig. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in a year or so, a feature must been added first to MediaWiki. _→AzaToth 23:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What feature is currently missing? Even if auto-detection did not work, it would still be nice to use the added speed boost of using the admin rollback feature. Even though I have the rollback flag, it really saves me no time as one still must open up the talk page and enter the data manually. ffm 03:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback can be detected without querying Special:Listusers. If you look at the source code of any page on Wikipedia, you'll notice a JavaScript array, wgUserGroups, in the header, which can be used to detect whether a user is a sysop, has rollback, or whatever. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 14:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation that I knew what I was talking about yesterday. Thanks, Pyrospirit! Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

← I was wondering the same thing. As it stands now, Twinkle's rollback is much quicker and more conducive to dealing with vandalism than the admin rollback. It doesn't make any mention of vandalism in the edit summary, it doesn't open the user's talk page for warning, and it doesn't automatically return you to the article after it's finished. For those who have been granted admin rollback, it would be good if there was a way to include that as an additional link, next to the usual vandalism rollback link. It just wouldn't work for people who haven't been granted that function, which could be handled via some type of error message or something. Or there could be a manual flag that users would need to set themselves as one of Twinkle's preference settings, in order to make that additional link available. As it stands now I don't think anyone who has used Twinkle would switch to the using the admin rollback function. It's quite inferior at the moment. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:38, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I can testify to this. I was given rollback yesterday, and I've been working on a script to provide a custom summary. Not being given the opportunity to summarize my revert is annoying. And I still have to open the talk page and fill things in manually. Granted, Ioeth has written a script to kind of integrate Twinkle and rollback (I'm still waiting for instructions on use; haven't tested it yet), but it would be much better if TW just detected either the sysop or rollbacker group and used rollback if one of those groups is present in wgUserGroups. If I could decipher the code, I'd suggest a patch, but TW's code is gibberish to me - there aren't really any comments describing what things do. :-/ I can't even figure out how to use SimpleWindow and QuickForm for my own script... Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently AzaToth will be updating TW to use only MW rollback. If +rollbacker is revoked, TW will fail. This also removes one of the main objections to including TW as a Gadget, since by revoking +rollbacker, you also disable TW. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, i just hope the whole rollback debate will be settled soon in that case. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So if the non-admin rollbacks are done away with, non-admins won't even be able to use TW rollback? Is that wise? Can't we just have a user-selectable config setting in TW to use one or the other? Equazcion •✗/C • 19:17, 14 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Unless TW works in a completely different way than most JavaScripts, implementing even auto-detection should be pretty easy. It could be used, for example, to set a user-configured preference of rollback vs. TW simulation if the user doesn't set it.

For example, if the name of the setting is useMWRollback, the script would define the property in a way like this:

if( typeof( TwinkleConfig.useMWRollback ) == 'undefined' ) {
    TwinkleConfig.useMWRollback = function() {
        for(i = 0; i<wgUserGroups.length; i++) {
            if(wgUserGroups[i] == "rollbacker") {
                return true;
            }
        }
        return false;
    };
}

It should be possible to do; however I gather that the point of the conversion is to make it more difficult for untrusted users to use Twinkle. If the non-admin rollback falls through, that would mean I'd no longer be able to use TW either. I must say that's a disturbing thought. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 20:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And very unwise, as it would make it much harder for the community as a whole to fight vandalism. I'd like to know where this discussion is taking place. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:55, 14 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I think we can assume (and i am guessing here) that the changes to Twinkle will be reversed in that case. As far as I can tell what will happen is that the "Gadgets" version of Twinkle would become the "default" version, and will require rollback permission. That does not mean of course that you cannot "fork" an older version of twinkle and continue to run that in you monobook.js --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I don't know why I was thinking of the changes as permanent. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:12, 14 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is, bureaucracy breeds more bureaucracy - a "forked" version of twinkle will likely be looked at by some people the same as a "hacked" version of VP or AWB. —Random832 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is why Twinkle shouldn't require anything more than +autoconfirmed. It really shouldn't be that hard to make Twinkle use MediaWiki rollback for people with +rollbacker or +sysop and use manual reverting for everyone else. Non-admin rollback was designed to make it easier to fight vandalism; restricting use of Twinkle will just dump all the extra load on people with rollback. Maybe a few people would used a forked version, but it's unlikely it would be nearly as widely used. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with restriction, I just dislike having duplicate code that does the same thing :) _→AzaToth 18:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Could just give users the choice to install an old, out of date (would not be updated), yet useable verson of Twinkle (the current version), or a new one for rollback + users. Tiddly-Tom 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember this is only for the rollback feature (which compromize less than 5% of the whole twinkle). _→AzaToth 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just curious but is it unfeasible to have a config flag to choose which rollback type to use? Equazcion •✗/C • 19:47, 15 Jan 2008 (UTC)

not unfeasable, but pretty stupid, as (almost) everyone can get rollback flag. _→AzaToth 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I had a different reason for suggesting that. I have rollback but wanted to be able to choose which method gets used, cause I've found the server-side rollback to actually be slower than Twinkle (though I haven't compared it extensively). But if the purpose here is to force people into one method for the sake of server load, and at the same time basically make it so that users need approval in order to use Twinkle's rollback, those are good reasons.Equazcion •✗/C • 20:27, 15 Jan 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Re code duplication, it's not the same thing. One method (the current mode) fetches and saves the content of an old revision manually, while the other makes a simple GET request to the server. One takes a long time, with lots of data transfer, and the other is quick and requires less than half the current bandwidth. It's just a couple extra if statements; what's the big deal? I, too, think TW should require only +autoconfirmed; needing the rollback permission is just asking for a lot of people to complain, I think. And, again, if the rollback falls through at some point (it could; I hope not, but it could), the script would have to be reverted. Why make people jump through extra hoops (RFR) to use TW? Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 00:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a big difference between having duplicate code that serves no purpose and having two ways of doing the same thing in a program. This is a situation where there is a good reason for having both manual and native rollback options, depending on user rights. And +rollback isn't all that easy to get. I got +rollback because I've worked extensively on RC patrol reverting vandalism. Do you know why I was able to do all that work on RC? Because of Twinkle granting me the ability to revert quickly and efficiently, making RC more manageable and less tedious. If Twinkle is limited to people already with rollback, I predict less people will be able to get +rollback and thus will not be able to use Twinkle. Twinkle has been working fine with requiring only +autoconfirmed; I don't see why certain users being granted +rollback changes this. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. If I hadn't had Twinkle I wouldn't have taken care of even a small fraction of the vandalism I did. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:40, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Still hoping for this. My internet connection is not entirely reliable, and once or twice Twinkle's download and upload rollback has been cut off by it part way through, leaving me having just vandalised the article and deleted part of it. Native rollback is fastest and easier on the servers, and Twinkle's automatic edit summaries are the most flexible. Combining the two really would be the best of both worlds. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 14:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i apologize for reviving this. unfortunately, i've read all of the above and i'm still not clear on where this stands. i was apparently just granted non admin rollback yesterday, but i'm unsure how this affects me, since i use twinkle. i'm, shall we say, **EXTREMELY** reluctant to turn off twinkle, to the point that i simply won't - it's way too useful for me. but i'd also like to be a good citizen and use the native rollback if it's so much better for the WP servers to do so. so, where does all this stand? is there a kludge i can put in place to have both functionalities? Anastrophe (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Could it work so if the user dosen't have +rollback, those parts of twinkle are disabled? A note could be flagged up on the gadgets page that rollback permission is needed for some functionality. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Can a function be added to welcome new users and anon-ips if the talk page is empty/red ? Cirt (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

no _→AzaToth 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To expand a little on AzaToth's lengthy and highly enlightening response, there's already a script that does this. Friendly is a script similar to Twinkle, and in fact based off of the same code, that provides features for welcoming new users, tagging shared IPs, and adding a variety of cleanup notices to articles. It uses the same style and interface as Twinkle and is maintained and updated by Ioeth; I highly recommend using it as it is a very useful and well-designed script. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I added it correctly... Thanks! Cirt (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

I find it difficult to add an edit summary, and it normally says (Notifying user of FooBar, using TW) rather than: (Notifying user of deletion nomination of FooBar, using TW) - your edit summary here

Please can someone investigate this?? Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 10:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to insert a {{subst:welcome!}} in addition to the warning on any new (non-existent) talk pages? Often when a newbie page gets "twinkled" they only get a warning and not a welcome. If this could be implemented it would really help with the "not biting the newcomers" philosophy. Thanks, --laurap414 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait I think I am asking the same thing that was asked above, I thought the poster above was asking just about welcoming newbies, not the welcome + warn thing. laurap414 (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a script which works very similar to twinkle called friendly that does exactly this function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nn123645 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that the tool has often added a month header with registered users, and that it's usually not helpful: e.g., [1]. Is there a chance you could make it not add that header unless it's at the top of the talk page (it might be helpful then), or you could give an alternate header name (e.g., in this case, "Not assuming good faith "). The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, wouldn't it be better to use the article title, linked, as the section heading on registered users' talk pages? At least for autoconfirmed users... Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 10:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be extremely helpful if, when tagging an image for speedy deletion because of copyvio, the script prompted for the URL of the copyvio in the same way it does for articles. Currently, I have to manually add the URL to the speedy tag after Twinkle is done. Redfarmer (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that twinkle currently does not have this series (Uw-nor1, Uw-nor2, Uw-nor3, and Uw-nor4) as a selectable option from the warn menu, and think it would be useful to add it. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 01:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I added these this morning. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!

I see quite a few Twinkle users patrolling the NewPage area. Great! One thing that would help us NewPage patrollers who can't use Twinkle for one reason or another would be if Twinkle could mark the page as "patrolled" after adding a speedy delete request. That way, the page is marked as Patrolled in the list of New Pages, and others won't waste time checking the new article.

Thanks! ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask for the same feature, but SmartGuy beat me to it....only by a few months though ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask for the same feature, but CultureDrone beat me to it....only by a month though ! :-). Mission Fleg (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I recently semi-protected an article due to vandalism, and tried to tag it using Twinkle. However, the article was already move protected to sysops. Maybe Twinkle should have a "tag only" option, and the form should better resemble the actual protection form. Justin^(c)_(u) 20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the ARV tab can only report vandals to WP:AIV. It would be very useful if Twinkle had a form that could report WP:3RR violators to WP:AN/3RR. I know it would probably be very difficult to put in but it seems like a useful feature. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar tool (though not JS) here. I thought maybe it would help out with the idea if accepted. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just out of curiosity -- Why is the link to report a user at AIV spelled "ARV" instead? I've been wondering about that for a long time. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:51, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I think its because it also reports bad usernames and sockpuppets. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- but then what does ARV stand for? Equazcion •✗/C • 22:00, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)

According to TWINKLE's documentation, it means Advance Reporting and Vetting. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:10, 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Something that might be useful would be a checkbox in the categories for deletion option that would specify "User Category?" in selected it would place the deletion request on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion instead of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 03:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to know when one stumbles into an article subject to WP:SANCTIONS. Any way to detect when {{sanctions}} is on an article's Talk page and have an option whether to proceed with an action? -- SEWilco (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to find it in the drop-down menus: {{uw-username}} -MBK₀₀₄ 11:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's near the bottom under "Single-issue warnings". Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you can't use the 'rollback' (=undo) and 'restore this version' directly from the revision history? Without popups it would be pretty hard to judge (though edit summaries could still identify vandalism in some cases), but I'd imagine most people with this tool have popups as well, so it would make things easier. With undo, I basically mean a one click undo that returns an error message if it can't be undone. Richard001 (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I came here to request revert functionality on these pages, too. The special quasi-rollbacks ("[rollback] [vandalism]") do show up on Special:Contributions, which doesn't show the edit either, so I don't think the running blind issue would be a reason not to do it.

P.S. I've just started to use Twinkle, but I definitely like what I see. Thanks! Superm401 - Talk 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I got the special rollback links working on page history. It would be great if this were merged in. Superm401 - Talk 23:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am an IE user while editing and there isn't any program like this for IE. Could you please make a version of it avaliable even if it isn't as good as the original? I would greatly appreciate that.--Destructo^{Talk to me} 03:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I know Twinkle doesn't work on IE, but is there any way of making it work (e.g. copying the scripts to somewhere on my computer, etc.). I have IE7Pro which has a Greasemonkey-like Javascript platform. Joshua Issac (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been using IE since I first used the internet, and I was eight at the time. I won't be installing any other browsers, but I'd like to be able to use Twinkle. I don't get it, most applications and website reccomend Internet Explorer, so why don't you create a version of Twinkle that supports it? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You really ought try Firefox. I used to swear by IE as well. –xenocidic (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have Firefox on my computer, but I don't use it regularly because it takes some time to start up. Sometimes I use Opera to edit Wikipedia, but it would be nice to be able to use Twinkle when I am using IE to browse the Internet. Joshua Issac (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably just the one template that does this, but I was wondering if you could make it somehow so both parameters in {{uw-c&pmove}} can be entered in the warn box. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The new instructions at WP:UAA are to use {{user-uaa}}, not {{userlinks}}. Please change the code to comply with that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This change was made on 27 March 2008. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The CSD templates {{db-histmerge}}, {{db-move}} and {{db-copypaste}} require that the editor specify criteria as to what article needs to be moved or history merged to (and reasons as to why with {{db-move}}) but Twinkle doesn't allow for this so editors have to make two edits in order for an administrator to take action. Can extra fields be enabled when selecting for G6 criteria so these specifics can be entered and done in a single edit? --treelo _talk 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I just nominated a page for deletion using Twinkle and it inadvertently overwrote an existing deletion discussion. It would be helpful if Twinkle could automatically detect if the XfD page already exists, and create a 2nd nomination in those cases (or 3rd, 4th, etc). I didn't even realize I had overwritten a previous discussion until someone else who had it watchlisted brought it to my attention. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:08, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to do that. Please report WHICH article title did not detect its earlier nomination. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It was Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits. Maybe the long title had something to do with it... Equazcion •✗/C • 15:35, 14 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I have had this problem also. I nominated an article that had already been at AfD 3 times. The 4th nomination failed to create '[article] (4th nomination)', instead it overwrote the first nomination. --TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 04:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

One simple addition I would love to see on Twinkle would be the addition of options on the CSD menu to add the A7 templates {{db-person}} and {{db-group}}. It would be a real time saver and save us from having to use the generic A7 template for people and groups. Redfarmer (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the most common CSDs is Template:db-person. There is no option for this in the CSD tab. Would it be possible to add it? George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC) --George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When reporting at UAA, one of the options Twinkle gives is 'confusing', earlier this month policy was changed to allow confusing usernames. This needs updating. Thanks! George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy is still too confusing on that point, so I decided to not update it. _→AzaToth 21:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

would it be possible to make this template appear when reporting a user because of their username, or have an option to add it in the warnings menu?...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 18:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This template no longer exists. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there :-) ,

is it possible to include my newly created consensus template as well as my anti censor template (which can be placed on top of a article or section) in twinkle's list of article tags?

i would appreciate it if you could do this for me :-) .

you can find the template for consensus here.

and the anti censor template here.

regards SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Twikle doesn't have any article tags. _→AzaToth 18:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#I10 has recently been added - it would be nice if Twinkle supported it. Hut 8.5 17:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle should have an option to automatically open a reverted user's actual Talk page, instead of the edit screen for that page. I almost always use Twinkle's automatic warnings, so it's more useful to me (and most others, I would guess) to show the formatted version, which makes it easy to see the history of warnings that the user has gotten in the past. — Insanity Incarnate 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I second this request. If Twinkle would throw me straight into the edit preview, that would be the best of both worlds. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You could solve this (somewhat annoyingly on occasion) by clicking the "Show preview on my edit" box in the "editing" tab of your "My Preferences" page. --tennisman 00:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if the rollback script could basically disregard sinebot's edits, or in other words, treat sinebot edits as edits by the previous user. It would be convenient to be able to roll back vandalism/trolling to talk pages that sinebot already got to. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

SineBot should already been excluded. _→AzaToth 14:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The template {{uw-ra}} seems to have been deleted (see discussion here). Twinkle still has the warning (bottom of the drop-down menu in "single issues warnings"). Can this be removed? Does anyone know if there is a replacement for that warning template? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a useful feature --Bit Lordy (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, When using TW to add a CSD template to images for copyvio, it would be great if user is prompted for the URL from which the image is taken. This happens when adding CSD to articles, but not when adding CSD for copyvio to images. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 02:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if Twinkle offered to add the {{prod-2}} proposed deletion endorsement template to the page if I try to prod a page which is already prodded. tgies (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconding this LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 23:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to set the default warning level to something else (i.e. "Blocking")? I poked through the documentation and past requests but didn't see anything regarding this. Thanks, xenocidic (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

on a related note, can we get {{schoolblock}} added to the list of block warnings? xenocidic (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but can we please get an option of making user talk page notification optional when tagging images for "pseudo-speedy deletion"? These warnings often come in series and the warned uploaders get annoyed by the volume of warnings.

This is a pretty urgent request – valuable editors are actually getting blocked for the annoyance they inadvertently cause by serial notifications, which they currently have no option to avoid!

Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconded - this has been the subject of new fewer than two recent lengthly & heated ANI threads. (note I moved this section in from general discussion). xenocidic (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Implemented, so be good. (also fixed the instance tagging bug as well) _→AzaToth 19:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You are my hero. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious (and apropos) tooltip. Nice work. xenocidic (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Hadn't seen that one. How incivil... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: when notifying somebody on their user talk page, could Twinkle check whether the page is a redirect, and follow the redirect to the user's new page if necessary? At present, Twinkle forces the notifications into the redirect page, where they of course are never displayed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if TWINKLE didn't notify you of your own image deletion on the grounds that it's been moved to Commons -- one of the commenters in my RfA was mightily amused by that edit. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncheck "Notify if possible". ViperSnake151 14:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Could Template:Uw-tdel1 etc. be added to twinkle's warning templates? --Slashme (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes please!! Mayalld (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is just me, but... after CSD'ing an article, the page refreshes to display the article with the template in place. However, this doesn't happen with prod - could the code be amended to auto-refresh ? CultureDrone (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For {{db-move}} CSDs, it would be great if Twinkle would prompt for the page name and a reason, so its easier to note a copy/paste move attempt or to put in old page/new page info. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting a configuration option whereby Twinkle does not put terminal punctuation at the end of edit summaries. I generally put a period at the end of my edit summaries, so Twinkle's automatic one is redundant. Since I write more non-Twinkle edit summaries than Twinkle ones, I am unlikely to ever get out of the habit. I have noticed other editors do the same thing. -Rrius (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Can some one add {{SUBST:MobileIP|organization}}too the Shared IP tab.HereFord 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You are referring to a feature of Friendly, which has since been completed. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it at all possible to make twinkle add a afd to your watchlist?HereFord 02:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I understand that for very good reasons the use of the unlink feature in Twinkle is limited to article space. But how feasible would it be to slightly expand its scope to include templates? For example, in the film articles I tend to stick to editing, I often come across a situation where, having checked "what links here" post-delete and post-unlink, I find all the original article links still present. This is because the deleted article is linked to in multiple actor, franchise, or director templates, which are transcluded into sometimes dozens of articles. It then becomes a case of slogging through the list to find the templates and remove the entries manually. Is this something that can be done, or would it present too much of an opportunity to those who would cause havoc? Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 08:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please consider adding the ability to tag {{derivative}} on images, notifying users accordingly.

Also please consider adding sutiable options for CSD 10/11.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)