Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Deletion of userpages...[change | change source]

Hello all,

there are quite a few userpages up for deletion, from users who have not edited here for some time. Before going through all these deletion requests, I propose the following solution:

  • The user in whose userspace the page is can ask for deletion (this is part of the regular deletion process)
  • If the user is not under a long-term ban, and that the page does not violate any policy, there is no reason to delete their userpage; we might want to consider marking the page inactive/old at best (after a given time, eg. three years)
  • Since we have no wikiprojects, some wikiprojects were created in userspace, we need to discuss what to do with those; they need to be handled separately, since their scope is different.

I would prefer a discussion here (possibly resulting in a guideline), rather than having the same discussion several times on the RFD board. As always, comments are welcome. --Eptalon (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, they are user sub-pages. The user pages themselves are not involved. In some cases there is no real content at all, so nothing is lost by deleting them. Where there is substantive content, at least a clear verdict should be required for deletion. Since we don't recognise projects officially, they have no "in principle" sanctity. In many cases they were just a whim, and nothing has been made of them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally I don't see why we are deleting them. Assuming they don't violate a policy (ie an attack page) then we have to remember en:WP:NOTPAPER. (obviously that is about content but the same principle applies) We aren't restricted to the amount of space we have so there is no need to delete them. -DJSasso (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of the user pages in questions are for WikiProjects. There is precedent for deleting inactive WikiProjects: see here, here, here, here here, and here.
Some of the articles in question are stale user drafts. There is precedent for deleting these: see here, here, here, and here.
Eptalon suggests marking user pages as old or inactive. English Wikipedia has a WikiProject for managing abandoned drafts. We have Category:Stale userspace drafts that appears to be for this. I'm not sure what good this category is if such pages aren't eventually cleaned up. The note on this category actually mentions nominating the stale pages for quick deletion (although they would actually have to go to RfD because there no QD option for this).
DJSasso mentions en:WP:NOTPAPER. I don't think that's a reason to leave unfinished, abandoned work in place.
Our guideline Wikipedia:User page says that user subpages can have "A work in progress, until it is ready to be moved into mainspace". I would say that a work is no longer in progress if the user has stopped working on it. How long we should wait before saying the user has stopped is open for discussion.
Having said all that, I understand the reluctance to delete user subpages. Maybe we could establish guidelines for deleting them that are different from the regular RfD. We might want to let the RfDs run longer to give the user a chance to respond. We might also require that extra efforts be made to contact the user by any means available (for example, email if they have an email defined, talk page messages here and on other Wikimedia projects where they are active).
Here are some suggestions for when stale userspace drafts might qualify for deletion:
  • The page hasn't been edited in a certain amount of time
  • The editor hasn't edited anything here in a certain amount of time
  • The content on the page wouldn't be suitable for an article even if finished (not that I've seen any like that)
Since WikiProjects are for the community, and not just one user's work, not to mention that they're unofficial, criteria for removing them should be different. Possible criteria for this are:
  • No project activity recorded on the project page in a certain amount of time
  • The hosting user (if the project isn't under User:Project) and all listed project members are either banned, indefinitely blocked, or haven't edited anything here in a certain amount of time
Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I go along with Aunt's general idea. As for timing, I suggest four years (which is an absolute age in wiki terms). Any project or subpage not changed for four years should be available for deletion via RfD. Should not need detailed discussion, just a period for editors to stop the deletion if they want to do something constructive with the page or project. That is the essence of these background pages. They are meant to be for preparation, helping and other active use. They are not there as some kind of decoration. It is always open to editors to write on the topics, but there is no sense to leaving unedited user sub-pages lying around permanently. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking one year. How would folks feel about three?
In any case, the RfDs in question are about to reach their one-week mark. I have moved them to a separate section where they can sit until we feel we have consensus here. More comments are welcome. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, there might be a shorter period if the editor has done nothing at all with the page, but it's different when someone has put in some serious work. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I personally wouldn't want to seem them gone for quite a number of years. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a thought that unused 'project' pages make it less likely that others will venture onto the territory. That is why I think we should delete rather than mark "inactive". I see young editors very much like to 'own' something, and that is a main reason for their setting up projects. At the same time any ownership tends to put others off. I think we might have a rule that no-one was allowed to set up a project without showing that several others wanted to be a part of it. I think that would reduce the number of blank projects in future. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
So for wikiprojects: (before they are set up): 1 month regular activity (in the field of the project), by at least 3 users?- If this really is a problem, we could also formalize the setup process:
  1. activity
  2. announcement on ST
  3. Setup after the usual week, if there is consensus to do so
What do others think?--Eptalon (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Remember WikiProjects aren't official in any way, making rules about them would effectively be doing so. The reason we ask them to be in userspace is so that we don't have to regulate them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes and no; it's a good point but we do already have the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject. If we can agree on how to streamline the process of deleting old pages, and the criteria, we can add it to the existing guideline. Rus793 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Well WikiProjects are the ones I mostly see no purpose to delete. Because that could lead to people recreating the same one over and over having lost anything that might have been achieved by previous incarnations. I can see deleting other user space stuff, but WikiProjects should just be left alone and marked inactive if they are inactive, just like is done in en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
WikiProjects here don't seem to ever stay active for long. We just don't have enough users to keep something continuously active for very long. None of the ones I've looked at even had records of what they've done, which is why I think we don't lose much by deleting them. I'd prefer cleaning them up. They can always be recreated when there is interest.
I don't really like the way that some of the WikiProjects are set up under a user called "Project", because there is no such user. However, having them in a central place other than userspace would make it easier for someone to say, "This project hasn't been active in X years. I'd like to reactivate it, so I'm going to take over the coordination." All the pieces could stay where they are and just be used by a different set of people. I'd have less trouble with WikiProjects being inactive in a central place like that than I do with them being in userspace. I realize that would make them more official than they are now, which could raise a different set of issues. I wonder if we could do something like that without making them official. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, the something like that was the User:Project. It was intended as a way to centralize it without making it uber official. But of course like most things wikiproject here, it just fell to the wayside. -DJSasso (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The situation case by case is that most 'projects' have either no content at all, or very little. All or almost all the editors are no longer on the wiki, and some did nothing else but put up the project as a subpage. We delete pages which have no content, and we should delete sub-pages which have no content. I would be happy for projects with actual content to be collected together on a central page, including the chess page. This might help new editors to see what can be done with a project page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
There hasn't been any more comment here for a while. Does anyone see any kind of consensus forming? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Here is a suggestion: Since it seems clear that most of us agree that stale pages or projects should at some point be deleted, why don't we. Notify each user on there user talk page, with something similar to the following.
You're User Sub-page or Project page has been inactive for some time, please revisit your page and do one of the following:
  1. Mark it for deletion under QD U1 or in x amount of days (say 30 for argument sake) the page will be deleted.
  2. Resume editing of You're page, at which point it won't be stale and no need to worry about deleting it.
Or something along these lines. Much like they do for inactive admins, give them a time to bring them current, or face in this case deletion instead of De-Sysoping. Enfcer (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That would work for me. My comments:
  • We might want a guideline on how long to wait after the last edit before placing such a notice. I'm leaning toward a year at the moment, but three years and four years were mentioned before. Should it be the same for WikiProject pages as for other things?
  • If the notice is placed on a draft article, I think any change by the owning user would be enough to "un-stale" it. On a WikiProject page, it would be nice to see something showing that the project is active, such as mention of current work done in the subject area by project members.
  • With WikiProjects, if the notice is placed and there is no response, before deleting we could ask at Simple Talk if anyone would like to take it over.
Those are my thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone object if I remove the {{in progress}} from those 14 pending deletion. Maybe its just me, but I see that and think we have a lot of discussions going on, and this could take awhile since this discussion has stalled out. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I think we should delete them all except for the chess project. There is enough consensus. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikilove button, can we discuss that again?[change | change source]

Adding a Wikilove button was discussed here and mentioned again here, apparently with no result. Some of us miss it when coming from the EN wikipedia and would like to use it here. I think I can accurately say that we miss the rapidity of using it, and want to use it for slightly off-the-wall purposes (mostly by choosing an image from commons and adding a message that refers in a humorous way to recent activities in the wiki). Not having it somewhat stifles interaction that could have been helpful to building the encyclopedia. I see that some people on EN objected to it, but were over-ruled, and as far as I can see their objections were handled in appropriate ways. A separate question would be whether the button would be enabled or disabled by default, so if many people objected here, it could be disabled by default, and turned on in each individual editor's preferences. Can we discuss this again? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I can't see why not... I think it should be up to individual editors as you said. It's not an important feature in any respect, so I can understand why this request would be rejected. George.Edward.C (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it might be a fairly simple process, so being unimportant might not be a major hurdle. The Macedonian wiki reached a consensus to deploy it, and it looks as if the person responding to the bug report may have had a fairly straight-forward job. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Reading what Sminthopsis84 says above, I agree. I use it on English Wikipedia fairly frequently when interacting with other editors. I also like receiving it. I too miss having easy access here. To me, even though it might be not considered important, it is nice and potentially adds civility; one of the eternal issues in Wiki communities. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 16:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking into the subject further, I think it's a nifty feature. It seems to encourage interaction between users, thus I approve of this feature being added. I look forward to an administrator response! George.Edward.C (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

My comments from the previous discussions hold still. If you want to send a fuzzy message just do it manually. We have less than 20 regular editors here. We have no need for this kind of facebooky spammy stuff. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I would love to have the a Wikilove button!! I too miss having easy access here. Also , if anyone can tell me how to find {{}} , [[ ]] caracters, easilly accesable? I am realy tired off copying it all the time. --Hafspajen (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 (change conflict) Agree with Djsasso here. I think we have a much smaller community than say enwiki & if you want to thank someone, you can post on their talk page / leave a barnstar or sth. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree too, it's too small a group to set something like this up. There must be other things we need more. Rus793 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with George.Edward.C; Sminthopsis8 and Fylbecatulous; that it seems to encourage interaction between users. Well, if someone doesn't like it , then they don't have to use it - but that would be quite nice to have Wikilove. It improves the editing and the relations, I think. actually, almost all Wiki's have them - it is rather fairly unusual NOT having it, swedes have it, the Norwegians have it, (both Bokmål and Nynorsk, Hungarians have it... the Japanese have it - very pretty ones, indeed! [1] --Hafspajen (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


This Wikipedia is unusual in many ways, compared to the others. We like to keep things simple beyond just the language used in articles. According to what I'm reading here, some maintenance would be involved. Specifically, the text would need to be translated to simple English, and there would need to be a new configuration file. Who would maintain that? I'm not necessarily against this, but we have so few people to maintain that kind of thing that I'd be reluctant to add it. I'd only feel comfortable if very active, long-term editors here were willing and able to take that on. I'd also really, really like to see editors working on the content rather than this kind of thing: there is so much to do. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
A heart cupped in two hands.
Wikipedia:WikiLove can make Wikipedia a better place.
Well, yes, I agree, it is quite a lot to do here. Was thinking about having a go at the dog articles as soon as I figure out and read about how to edit in Simple ways. But how about thinking - here we have three new editors from the English Wiki who are willing to edit here - and who ask for Wikilove Wikipedia:WikiLove - and for a friendly enviroment? This is not a work anyone can force anyone to do. Wikilove is more than just a "Thank you for your edits" - it is quite an elaborate way of giving all kinds of awards, stars, a cup o tea, a cookies - or even one can make one of his own kind - with the help of a ready made template. Why not ask somebody from the English Wiki to help out - it would be a nice way of engaging even more editors over here? and also, think about the children, the children, they will think this is great fun. --Hafspajen (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I have two comments on this:
  • When you say that Wikilove is "quite an elaborate way" of doing something, that goes against what we are about here. This Wiki aims to keep everything simple -- not just the language in articles.
  • When you talk about children thinking this is fun, are you suggesting that they might edit here? They certainly can, but we often find that the people who are our target audience -- children, people whose first language is not English, people with learning disabilities, etc. -- are not good editors here. That is because writing Simple English requires understanding the many nuances and complexities of English so that you can make good choices, both for individual words and for sentence structure. Even people with very good English skills can have trouble with that.
My concern is that adding the Wikilove extension would require support that we might not be able to provide. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
THIS IS from the en: Wikipedia #Open collaboration= Wikipedians sometimes award one another barnstars for good work in order to appreciate a wide range of valued work extending far beyond simple editing to include social support, administrative actions, and types of articulation work. The barnstar phenomenon has been analyzed to determine what implications it might have for other communities engaged in large-scale collaborations.[1] --Hafspajen (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what your point is here. We have and use barnstars and Wikilove templates. I gave some recently myself. I'm not against that kind of thing. I'm just cautious about adding to our technical workload. From what I read, it requires some local maintenance and/or support. For that, we'd need users willing and able to manage the extension, who had been active here long enough to understand what we're about, and to whom we are willing to give the authority needed to do whatever it is that the extension requires. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure there will be someone willing to manage the extension. I am George.Edward.C (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
That's appreciated, but I think it should be an established editor. By established, I mean someone who has been here contributing actively in many ways for some time, just so we can feel they'll continue to be around. No offense, but you and the new editors asking for the feature don't fit that. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The "I am" is part of my signature. I wasn't volunteering. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I am George.Edward.C (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Aunt Linda's profiteroles and chocolate mousse, with chocolate-covered strawberries.jpg Wikilove - Aunt Linda's profiteroles and chocolate mousse, with chocolate-covered strawberries. It looks kind of nice...

--Hafspajen (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of maintenance, the configuration file will be in the MediaWiki namespace, therefore, only admins can maintain it... Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at this some more, and from what I can see, it might not be available to a small project like Simple wikipedia anyway, at least not without making a special request, a special request that currently looks extremely unlikely to come from this consensus-seeking exercise. I've asked a question here, but there's no response yet. In any case this "don't even offer to help unless you are serious enough to sign on for long-term drudgery in this grumpy environment" attitude that I'm seeing here, is rather discouraging. The messages for the wikilove system would need to be translated, but even if I undertook that, it looks as if there might not be anyone with the stamp of Simple-English-Approved-Editor willing to review my translations. Apparently things here don't work by consensus and learning-as-we-work as in the other wikis. P.S.: for maintenance needs, people can learn how and then ask to be allowed to make changes in MediaWiki, and can ask admins to perform particular tasks, and can submit bug reports at Bugzilla. Sminthopsis84 (talk)
How about we stop the name-calling, Sminthopsis84? You don't call people grumpy or similar things, and we won't call you frivolous. Deal? People are allowed to have different viewpoints without there being anything wrong with either of them. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Fine, and please add unwilling and incompetent to the list of names not to use. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Those don't necessarily carry the same value judgements, Sminthopsis84, depending on how they're used. Most of us have something we're unwilling to do, and something we're incompetent at. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Now, now, don't you two start quarreling here. Remember this is about Wiki - Love? It would be surely nice to have it - but if it is this complicated - well, shrug... --Hafspajen (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. T. Kriplean, I. Beschastnikh et al. (2008). "Articulations of wikiwork". Articulations of wikiwork: uncovering valued work in Wikipedia through barnstars. Proceedings of the ACM. p. 47. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460573. ISBN 978-1-60558-007-4. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460563.1460573

More special caracters?[change | change source]

I would love to have the a Wikilove button!! I too miss having easy access here. Also , if anyone can tell me how to find {{}} , [[ ]] caracters, easilly accesable? I am realy tired off copying it all the time. --Hafspajen (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you just type them? Would be far faster than either option. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Because, DJSasso, I don't have them, this is a Swedish computer - I am editing from Sweden, and this is what I have, !"#¤%&/()=?`^*'¨½@£$€, easily accesable. --Hafspajen (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC).
Yes, that's a problem. I've been copying a multiply sign from elsewhere too, to talk about hybrid plants like Petunia × atkinsiana. It must be extremely painful to do anything with mathematics. Here there's no pull-down menu for wiki markup, symbols, Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, Hebrew, Arabic, IPA, math and logic. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a wiki markup menu would be extremly useful. There is though some menu at Advanced /Special characters/ Help - on the top of the editing - EDITING SQUARE - is that Simple English -?- but no Wiki markup. --Hafspajen (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that solves my hybrid symbol problem. I'll think hard about this. I wonder if there is some way to set up a .js file for you that would provide the symbols you need. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: Some good news here, maybe. If I were better at php and jquery (just tried to learn them both last week), this could be good. I have a partial solution, which involves the individual editor creating a common.js file, so I'll transfer this discussion to your talk page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for article: HipHop Virtual Machine[change | change source]

I am not sure where new requests belong. Would someone care to try and do a simple version of w:HipHop Virtual Machine. Thank you. 103.254.5.99 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

They go at Wikipedia:Requested pages. I've added this one for you. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decisions[change | change source]

The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.

If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.

-- JurgenNL (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Process ideas for software development[change | change source]


Hello,

I am notifying you that a brainstorming session has been started on Meta to help the Wikimedia Foundation increase and better affect community participation in software development across all wiki projects. Basically, how can you be more involved in helping to create features on Wikimedia projects? We are inviting all interested users to voice their ideas on how communities can be more involved and informed in the product development process at the Wikimedia Foundation.

I and the rest of my team welcome you to participate. We hope to see you on Meta.

Kind regards, -- Rdicerb (WMF) talk 22:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

How to pronounce?.[change | change source]

Hi.

I want to know what are the simple english vowels, are similar to the vowels of natural english or are similar to the 5 vowels of spanish?

I have searched in many places( Google, Wikipedia... ) but I didn't find the answer. — This unsigned comment was added by Mikemizi001 (talk • changes) on 23:26, 23 August 2014‎.

Simple English is pronounced the same as regular English. The difference between simple English and regular English is that simple English uses fewer words and simpler sentence structure. All the words in simple English are also in regular English, and are pronounced the same. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
And which dialect is "regular English"? The British? The American? The Canadian? Regards, Vogone (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
By "regular English", I meant English without the restrictions of simplifying that are put on simple English. There would be "regular" and "simple" versions of all varieties of English. Simple British English would be pronounced the same as "regular" British English. Simple Canadian English would be pronounced the same as "regular" Canadian English. The same is true for other varieties of English. Pronunciation is not a factor in simple English. If there's a word other than "regular" that you'd prefer to use (non-simple?), feel free to use it. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle problems[change | change source]

When I go on "dif" I see rollback vandal and all the others twice (there are two rows). When I revert it doesn't go green and tell me it has been reverted it stays blue. Is everyone having this problem? --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm seeing the rollback (agf), rollback, and rollback (vandal) options only once. I don't use those, though, so I don't know what normally happens when you use them. Can you first explain just what you normally do and what you normally see? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So when I click the "dif" I see rollback (agf), rollback and rollback (vandal) on two rows (so twice) when I normally see just one row. Here below is what I am talking about.

Problem with twinkle (double row).png.

--Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I only see it once. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
So then what could the problem be? --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea. Did you change any Wikipedia settings recently? Or maybe some settings on your computer? By the way, when I said I only see it once, I mean when I display it for myself. I do see it twice in your screenshot! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I understood that. I did not change any setting recently. This happens on the Romanian Wiki also. Is there a site or something that explains what I could do? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if there is such a site. I wonder if it has anything to do with what you have in User:Reception123/monobook.js. (I assume you use the Monobook skin, is that right?) I just compared it with my monobook.js file, and I see some differences that might be related. First, you have a lot of "WarnVandalCustomItems.push" items that I don't have. I don't know what those are, but they seem related to automated warnings, such as those that Twinkle does. Second, I have the line "mw.loader.load(['ext.gadget.Twinkle']);" in my monobook.js, and you don't. I was told a while back that Twinkle works better with that line. I have no specific reason to think that any of that might be causing the problem, but it's worth noting.
Whenever I see something like this that has changed for some users but not all, and the users haven't changed any of their own settings, I suspect a software change. There could be something in the combination of settings you use that works differently now, whereas other users who have a different combination of settings aren't seeing anything different. There are one or two things that stopped working for me a while back that I just wrote off to that kind of thing.
That is the limit of what I can do here. Let's see if anyone else has any ideas. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the help Auntof. Even when I go on monobook I see "Go to twinkle preferences..." twice exactly like the DIF. So there is a general problem I think. As you said, let's see if anyone else figures out what the problem is. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
A new change was deployed which allowed all users to load JS/CSS from their global.js at meta (see mw:Extension:GlobalCssJs). Any code which is already present on your global.js at metawiki will be loaded on all Wikimedia wikis. You are seeing this because Twinkle is loaded twice - once from the meta global.js, and one from this wiki's monobook.js. You can either remove the JS code from your monobook.js on this wiki, remove the JS code from your global.js on meta, or use something similar to what I am doing on my global.js so that the global.js code is not loaded on some wikis which you already have a monobook.js. Chenzw  Talk  11:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)