I don't see how anything about this issue has materially changed. The "welcome survey" is not guaranteed to be available on every wiki, nor is it part of the mediawiki software.

Tim, you rule. Seriously. This is p. perfect.

I don't want another tab. I want you to remove the button. Add the link/button somewhere else, inside the General tab. Just don't put the "erase everything" button right next to the "Save" button.

Checking in on my bug that has now seen over three years of inaction!

It's been a year since this bug was filed. Is there any chance that anyone cares at all?

I can't believe I never noticed this before. Seriously. I'm kicking myself about it.

Does "restore default settings" mean "restore to factory defaults, before I made changes"? Or does it mean "throw away my changes and restore my settings as I previously had saved them?" That's my first question, and I'm a native English speaker who is also a professional designer. It's dangerous and confusing!

Folks, seriously: just fix this. Let the bots break for a day or five. You don't need community consensus. You just need the Will To Do It.

"Should" and "Does" are two different things, though. The fact that something as basic as "Logout" has this flaw does not inspire me with confidence that other, more important things are not broken.

There's probably a LOT of action urls that should be blacklisted. A trap would be someone creates a link that executes an action that has higher privileges and tricks a sysop into clicking it, etc.

Okay so I'm gonna comment here and I expect Pau will back me up on this but:

I don't think anyone is going to work on this.

I would very much like to have this spam reduced. While my username isn't a common name (like Angela), it is _short_ (4 characters). If I had my druthers, I'd prefer the security question as it is least invasive to the user from a day-to-day operational standpoint.

I'm just going to let this languish in eternity, then! I'm not going to do it; I'm not going to spend any extra effort to get myself removed.

I do not work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Please do not assign me tasks.

Looks good to me!

I always preferred "review" over "patrolled" but there was some argument about our wording drifting from the wording used by the new page patrollers. I did not consider it a hill worth dying on at the time, so I relented.

I don't work for the Foundation anymore, so I don't really have a lot of say in this, but as far as I know, WikiLove is still good to go as long as the local wiki knows that they need to adjust their configuration.

In T103896#1595523, @Deskana wrote:

It has lead images and descriptions in production, tables are collapsed, it's been more optimised for speed, has a nifty implementation of nearby, and so on. A lot of effort has gone in to honing it. Web has none of this.

Seriously. Did anyone do any research about interstitials like this before it moved into the "let's do it" phase?

Wow. This is a terrible, terrible thing that is happening.

In T73240#1351793, @Tgr wrote:

Facebook for example uses Georgia, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif for the link titles. Could be localization-dependent, I didn't check; it could also be that they just don't care as much as we do (although they have a much larger userbase and more engineers to throw at it) but it's still not something I would dismiss off-hand.

I'm confused. Are you arguing for or against my position?

Which ones are those? I'm serious. Are there examples of software designed for use on 250+ languages that we can learn from? Or are we blazing trail here?

I think we should just revert back entirely to "sans-serif" and move forward with that. I don't think that the switch to Serif for headers had any real logic behind it other than "let's try something different" which is never a great reason to do anything. If there were actual research - numbers, say, or a study - anywhere that said otherwise, I might rethink that opinion. Since (as has been argued endlessly) defining specific fonts creates insane degrees of problem with internationalization, moving towards the generic makes sense.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

What are you talking about, "Flow is just another experiment"? And what does Flow have to do with Moodbar at all? (nothing, I tell you.)

That's not an argument for making it easier for them to see where they goofed up in their bad behavior.

"Let's teach serial sock abusers how to be better sock puppets by tipping our hand at them and showing them what we know."

MediaWiki should be font agnostic. Defining fonts other than "sans-serif" or "serif" in the base code is probably not correct.

There exists a precedent with pt.wp where the steps to implement an acceptable solution were going to take too long to implement. I think a similar thing can be done here: restrict article creation to registered users only for a hard period of 6 months, after which that restriction is removed.

Do you mean "disable anonymous mainspace creation" or "disable anonymous page creation (talk + main)", or what the original request was for "disable anonymous editing?"

I, too, wish to have my talk page Flow-enabled. Both on mw.org and enwiki.

I am happy about those results, no doubt.

Okay, honestly, I don't work for the Foundation anymore so I don't feel like I'm the person to talk to about this.

Unsubscribing myself, just FYI.

@Dzahn: Feel free, mate.

I am completely unlikely and unwilling to go through the process of getting a new key and access to git repots.

It's Zalgo text, high-unicode. I'm not going to change it. This is ridiculous.

I suggest "reports.wikimedia.org" and then the urls would be like reports.wikimedia.org/annual/2014