Wikipedia:Interfaces/Internal interfaces

Internal interfaces - what do you use?

How do you have Wikipedia set up? (What scripts do you have installed, what do they do, what skin, do you use the edit tool bar, etc.). The Transhumanist 00:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been urged on my talk page to expand this project, so we might be getting more people in here, therefore for each section each responder should set up a subsection so that it is easier to read each person's contribution.

AMK152's internal interface

I don't have any scripts set up. I do not use the edit toolbar, I just type in wiki mark up manually. -AMK152 02:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Budgiekiller's internal interface

Pretty much ditto for me. I'm using the standard monobook skin and do my markup manually. Budgiekiller 13:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I use pop-ups but have (well-documented by me) problems with it under Safari. I have a number of links in Safari and IE6 to get me to WP:AIV for example. Budgiekiller 18:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanist's internal interface

Skin: monobook. Nothing special.

Edit toolbar: I definitely use this. For some reason, when I started here I didn't even touch the thing for nine months. It just looked so cryptic, and it was hard to memorize the buttons. But eventually I discovered it can be a real timesaver. I started using it to do redirects, as clicking the #R is much easier than typing it all out. And it puts the edit cursor right there inside the brackets so all you have to do is type the page name. After that, I was convinced that the toolbar was useful, so I opened a sandbox and practiced with the other buttons for about a half hour. So now I know what's up there, and have several more of the buttons memorized. They keep adding new buttons to this, and one of my favorites is the table button. That makes creating matrices a breeze.

Scripts: when Interiot's went down, I used the script to make use of Interiot's 2 (on a previous account). I also had popups installed, though I never really understood it (I only used one feature of it, so I'll have to try it out again sometime soon). I copied a whole bunch of scripts to my monobook.js page at one time, but since few scripts are documented adequately, I never could figure out what any of them did! At this time, in order to make heads or tails of the scripts you pretty much have to know Javascript. Weird things happen for no apparent reason (hitting certain key combinations) when you don't know what you have loaded, so someone will need to organize the script department better before it will be very useful. I'll let you know if I discover anything.

Navigation aids: Wikipedia provides many ways to use links.

I use my userpage header and menu as a navigation bar (tools are hard to make sense of on Wikipedia, for instance, so I created my own tool page).
I've redesigned my workshop to double as a navigation console. There are 4 navigation headers at the top of the page to choose from (contents, editorial, communications, and administration). The default is contents.
I've streamlined the linknames on my Firefox toolbar to make room to add more wikibuttons, and have 13 of them crammed up there, which take up about half of the toolbar.

(If anybody else is reading this, please create a subheading and tell us all about your internal interface). The Transhumanist 17:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

CBDunkerson's internal interface

I'm always changing things around... sometimes I use the classic skin and sometimes monobook. Use popups and 'godmode lite' extensively even as an admin. I like the 'deep history reversion' feature of god-mode lite for vandals that coordinate multiple accounts to vandalize the same page... can go back to the last clean version with one click. Also use automated warning template scripts. Popups are great for getting a preview of what the change to the page was, seeing all changes since my last edit, getting to the talk or history of a linked page with one click instead of two, et cetera. Easily the most useful scipt available and works on both classic and monobook. Don't use much local css, just to hide the '.spoiler' class so I don't see the 'spoiler start/end' section notices. When using classic skin I suppress the search box entirely because I've got the same functionality set up in Firefox's search option. Haven't looked into getting this to work in monobook yet. Like flexibility of the classic skin better overall, but often need to use monobook to see how things will look for the majority of users since it is the default. --CBD 14:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is "godmode lite", and please provide a link to the page it is available/described on. The Transhumanist 23:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this site for info on the 'godmode lite' script and Wikiproject User Scripts for a list of that and other javascripts which can be used to add/change various custom features to the Wikipedia 'internal interface'. --CBD 11:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interiot's internal interface

See #Interiot's external interface, above. Most of my tools are Firefox-based rather than being in monobook.css or monobook.js. The only thing my monobook.js does is include CSS that makes the left column totally disappear. The "go" textbox is replaced by my "w" keymark. I memorize most Special: locations, and go to them with "w". For the whatlinkshere/relatedchanges/etc, I memorize their keyboard accesskey (which still work because the left column is hidden, not deleted). And by some lucky mishap, the interwiki links appear just off the right side of the screen, so I just scroll to see them. This makes it a little less obvious that I use Wikipedia from work, and makes articles look a little cleaner. --Interiot 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ansell's internal interface

I use the Cologne Blue skin as I do not like the colour scheme that comes with Monobook, and well, I have kind of got used to it. Albeit there are random disadvantages, like the common assumption with "popups" and other JS helps that Monobook is the underlying skin. I guess I could go back to Monobook and just customise the CSS to my needs, but I am comfortable and productive still so it is not a driving force. Ansell 02:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough's internal interface

I use monobook, with extensive Javascript addins, both my own and borrowed from others - mainly to do simple search and replace. I use popups which I find good for antivandal work, but sometimes gets in the way. I have my raw sig set to include the date so that I save a keystroke when signing my posts. I use WerdnaBot's good offices to archive my talk page, and I have a box of "admin links" on my user page (can't remember who I copied that from).Rich Farmbrough, 11:08 7 November 2006 (GMT).

Oh yes I also have User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary on my talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 11:52 7 November 2006 (GMT).

I've merged the box of admin links above with the one on my old userpage, and have made the new one available at the top of my workshop page, which is accessible from my userpage menu. The Transhumanist 00:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in that shorter sig, it's actually pretty clever. It goes like this: "{{subst:CURRENTTIME}} [[{{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}]] [[{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}]] (GMT)". It has to be added into your signature preference, and that has to be raw, or else things get messed up; obviously you'll need to prepend to those templates whatever your regular signature is, like for me, I would append to the templates "--[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]]" I've added it into my signature; should be fun! --Gwern (contribs) 19:16 15 November 2006 (GMT)

Mac Davis's internal interface

I've recently switched from Cologne back to monobook. I like Colonge better, but monobook is more the standard. I don't have anything at all. No popups, no javascript. Manual editing. I never use the javascript editing toolbar either. Just text. X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 17:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cynical's internal interface

I use monobook, with assorted javascript addins which have been acquired from other people (my knowledge of javascript consists of document.write and little else). The most important of these is popups, which is an absolute gem. In fact, I usually find myself RC patrolling manually (rather than using the snazzy 'alternative interfaces', some of which I have the javascript for set up) just because Popups is so effective at diff viewing, reverting etc. I never use the editing toolbar - I know the appropriate wikitext for everything I want to do, and having to scroll up the page to click a button (which sometimes puts the markup in the wrong place) is distracting. Cynical 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willtron's internal interface

Just the standard monobook skin and also I write wiki mark up manually. --Willtron (?) 21:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching

The only difference between admins and other editors...

Note that there is only one thing that differentiates between administrators and other editors. And that is trust.

Administrators gain their position because the Foundation and the Community trust them enough to allow them the use of powers which could -- potentially -- be harmful to the encyclopedia. Otherwise admins are much like other editors: some know a lot about policy and get involved in enforcing it and some don't. While it's all very useful to learn about policy whether you are intending to be an administrator or not, that isn't the critical factor in passing an RfA. The critical factor is getting the community to like and trust you and that requires showing involvement, good judgement, people skills and commonsense above all. In short you have to be seen as an active, useful and likeable member of the community. Sure, knowledge of policy helps with that but it is only part of the formula. In the end Trust is the big thing you have to gain if you want to be an admin. Lose it and you won't remain an admin for long. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analyze me!

Can you, from my contributions, tell me where I'm most likely to be considered weak if making an application to become an admin? Cheers! Budgiekiller 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends upon your approach or how you are presented. Many RfAs of specialized editors succeed on their strengths by emphasizing those strengths in the nomination. I believe that is the best (and most honest) approach. Vandal hunters are by far the most favored type of specialist at RfA, because Wikipedia needs as many vandal hunters as it can get. Trusted vandal reverters who can block vandals are in high demand. If you still want to take the generalist's approach, then work on Categories, Portals, templates, and pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Some Wikipedia namespace activities you can try are more deletion discussions (especially the types you haven't tried much WP:MfD, WP:CfD, WP:TfD), volunteer at Wikipedia:Peer review, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Editor review, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:Reference desk, participate in the discussoins at the Wikipedia:Village pump (any or all), Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (providing useful commentary and not just "support"/"oppose", etc. When you spot a red-linked username or an IP contributing to a page send them the an appropreate greeting from the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. Engage in policy and guideline discussions (found on the talk pages of policies and guidelines). Edit/cleanup/improve Wikipedia's help pages (some of which are in the Help namespace, and some in the Wikipedia namespace); those in the help namespace must be edited at Wikimedia (a link is always provided), except for the Wikipedia-specific portions. Wikipedia's daily departments, such as the features on the Main page (picutre of the day, etc.) need constant volunteer support (to select and schedule the contributory pages). Install an admin navigation bar on one of your userpages (see the one at the top of User:Rich Farmbrough's or the Go for it user page, and start frequenting the pages those link to. Hang out at Wikipedia:Administrator's notice board. And close some deletion discussions. Basically, general involvement in a wide variety of activities on Wikipedia's "Blue pages". The more areas you have experience in, the better. Put in a couple thousand edits, amongst the areas from those just mentioned which you've participated in the least, and you should be fine. But don't resign from the article namespace. Articles are the raison d’être of Wikipedia. The Transhumanist 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too!

Same goes here- CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 23:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an easy one. Continue editing articles and reading help pages. As you proceed, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's style guides, templates, and categories. As you become more experienced in editing articles and participating in article discussions on their talk pages, delve into Wikipedia's blue pages more and more (especially Policies and guidelines and choose areas you find interesting from my reply to Budgiekiller, above). Get to know your way around the encyclopedia (see Wikipedia:Contents and Wikipedia:Navigational templates) and the Wikipedia namespace {get to know Wikipedia:Community portal, Wikipedia:Shortcuts, and the Wikipedia:Department directory like the back of your hand). In about 6 months to a year, you'll be an obvious candidate for adminship. When you feel you are ready, read all the pages on the recommended reading list above. And of course, start using the tips posted on this page and at the Wikipedia:Tip of the day project. One of the fastest ways to learn is to teach, so putting in time at the Help desk and Wikipedia:Reference desks will improve your learning curve (be sure to browse their archives too). And throughout all this, remember, be supportive of your fellow Wikipedians (see Wikipedia:Welcoming committee, Wikipedia:Barnstars, and Wikipedia:Esperanza. Enjoy yourself, and edit away! The Transhumanist 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General learning tip

Learn from the example of others. Pick some mentors. Choose some experienced Wikipedians you admire, and study their recent contributions (now that they are experts). You can find the most prolific and experienced Wikipedians at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Read their user pages, and when you are there, click "User contributions" on the sidebar's toolbox menu. Use the diff command to study their edits. To learn what admins do, study the best admins. The Transhumanist 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA standards

The standard is that there is no standard. For an example of this, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D.

The last chart on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards shows how articles are growing faster than adminships. It will be harder and harder over time for Wikipedia's admins to keep up with their responsibilities, unless an effective way to approve admins is found and adopted.

Another chart on there shows how long editors wait before going for their RfAs and their success rate. Based on this chart, it doesn't help much to wait. The Transhumanist 02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]