MediaWiki talk:Clearyourcache

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] This information is incorrect!

Opera DOES NOT clear the CSS cache on any kind of reload - You have to close down the browser (as it keeps them in memory also) and manually go in and clear all the files out of the 'styles' folder where they are cached - this is a real pain in the #@$. You can even set opera to not cache anything at all - but it still does!!! This is an extremely frustrating problem. If I set the browser to not cache anything, I expect it to. . .that's right, NOT CACHE ANYTHING. . .but it does all the same. To me this is a MASSIVE breach of personal security. Maybe other browsers do this as well, but I like opera and I'd like it to be obey the commands it's supposed to obey. But back to the css file problem. . .IE's control + F5 is much easier for web developers - I wish the opera team would fix this discrepency. If anyone knows of a way to easily bypass opera's cache and force reload the css file, please email me, I'd love to find a solution. P.S. All versions of opera have this problem, including opera 9. (webmaster@earthsociety.org) --131.217.6.6 01:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This message currently claims that any reload in Mozilla will "clear" (better termed "bypass") the cache. This is not the case. Wikipedia:Bypass your cache contains the correct instruction, which is to hold down Shift while reloading; this is also true for Safari, and probably Konqueror (see Wikipedia talk:Bypass your cache for evidence in support of this).

I don't know if anyone will spot this here, and presumably the default message in the software will also need changing, but I'll have to follow up other channels later. But if a sysop/admin does come past, please amend this page appropriately; thank you. - IMSoP 23:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Opera is a fiend for caches, and users will specifically have to load their new CSS (or delete their cache) by viewing and refreshing their raw CSS, that is in the sense of &action=raw&ctype=text/css. - Vague | Rant 08:48, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Is it true then that Opera, unlike every other browser we have information on, will clear most things from cache just by pressing F5? Or are we, in fact, missing the correct procedure for doing this (nobody's added anything for Opera to Wikipedia:Bypass your cache yet...)? Certainly http://www.opera.com/features/keyboard/ doesn't show anything different for "hard" refresh, but does that mean it will always clear cache, that it will never do so, or just that the information is top secret? - IMSoP 22:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Opera will always completely reload from server if a manual reload is forced (F5) — if that file is marked as newer (timestamp). So if the Wikipedia properly updates timestamps on file change, a reload is sufficient. Jordi·✆ 23:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To add on this: Opera appears to be the only browser which actually does what the standards ask for, and listen to the server. As such it is a "fiend for caches", as files are only updated when the file on server is timestamped newer than the cached copy. Jordi·✆ 23:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
From my experiments, it actually seems to do worse than other browsers: a normal reload from Mozilla or Firefox reveals plenty of "304 Not Modified" responses in my Apache log, indicating that it asked whether there was a newer version, and got the answer "no" - for the wiki page itself, and for all the associated bumph that needs getting (JS, CSS, images, etc); however, the whole point of a "hard refresh" aka "force reload" is that it offers the user the option to not ask this question, but refreshes the cache anyway, in case "normal operation" is not behaving correctly.
Opera, on the other hand, does not offer the user this override, and furthermore - according to my testing today (on Opera 8.02 for Linux) - doesn't send an If-Modified-Since header for the actual wiki page, only the other files. So unless MediaWiki is doing something other than "what the standards ask for", I can only assume that Opera is behaving according to its own rules. In fact, this seems to tally with the idea that browsing to ...&action=raw&ctype=text/css and hitting refresh will cause a proper reload - Opera is effectively doing a "force reload" on the current primary URL, while using the cache for any referenced bits and bobs.
One conclusion of all which is that the instructions for Opera should be removed from this message, unless replaced with some longer workaround instructions. - IMSoP 23:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Konqueror instructions give unexpected result

Request: Change '''Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror:''' to '''Mozilla/Safari:'''; change '''Opera:''' to '''Konqueror/Opera:'''

Rationale: The current version of the message says that pressing Ctrl-Shift-R clears the browser cache in Konqueror (as well as in other browsers). For Konqueror, this is incorrect—in fact, pressing Ctrl-Shift-R closes the "active view", which closes the active pane when using split windows or (more frequently) closes the browser tab/window. Obviously, for someone following the given instructions, this would be a very unexpected result. As it says at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache#Konqueror, Konqueror only requires pressing the "Reload" button on the toolbar or (like Opera) pressing just F5. It's therefore more accurate that Konqueror be listed alongside Opera in this message than listed with Safari and Mozilla. Thanks. — Jeff | (talk) | 01:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Ruud 01:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] warning

There is a worm spreading that tricks users into thinking they have been blocked and telling them to past a template into their monobook.js, this results in the same code running on their account. I have added a warning to slow the spread of this worm. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please add a link to Wikipedia:Help_desk so that a naive user can tell where to ask about questionable code.

If you have been directed here because of a note on your talk page, please be very certain you know the user who left it for you. If not, the code may contain malicious content, which can compromise your account and lead to your being blocked. If you are unsure about whether the code is safe, you can ask at the help desk.

Thanks CMummert · talk 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is some malicious code doing the rounds, shouldn't this message be visible on all JavaScript pages? What's stopping somebody from adding that code to a page that isn't called monobook.js? J Di 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The code caused the user to send talk-page messages to other users trying to frighten them into installing something in their monobook.js. (Frightening users into installing something into some other JS page just wouldn't be self-perpetuating.) As far as I know, the code's been eliminated now (all pages containing it were deleted), and the message has frightened at least one user into thinking their monobook had been infected when it hadn't, so toning down the message might make more sense (e.g., 'Note that this page is your personal user scripts page. Do not edit this page unless you intend to install a user script; if you think you may have installed something here by mistake, contact the Help desk.'). --ais523 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] change link

{{editprotected}}

Perhaps a link to the technical village pump might be more useful than one to the help desk, since those people would be more able to understand js, and the village pump is meant for more drawn out discussions (if needed). GracenotesT § 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I originally thought that VPT would be irritated by newbies asking whether or not obviously safe scripts are safe. Do you think that will be a problem? If not, I will be glad to change the tag. CMummert · talk 02:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Help Desk people are pretty good at directing users elsewhere, although this may be annoying to some people. It may also be useful in theory to have a "safe scripts" page (protected, of course), but in practice this seems too cumbersome. At the help desk, by the way, few .js queries appear; maybe one or two every five days, and almost none are related to worries about malicious code. I think that the VPT people are patient when it comes to user javascript, and there would be no significant influx of people. But an argument could go either way. GracenotesT § 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I got a 'is my monobook infected' question on my talk page once (the monobook of the user in question was blank); they don't come up very often at all at the Help Desk (which spends most of its time telling users the correct place to ask). --ais523 14:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
the change has been made. CMummert · talk 14:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. GracenotesT § 21:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note: appears on preferences

This message appears at Special:Preferences, as well as on user .js pages. Its main purpose is to inform the user of clearing their cache, but understandably something... bad could happen on both pages. Could the security message be generalized? GracenotesT § 01:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Changed to default on pref for now, more specific? Also, where is the header on MediaWiki:Clearyourcache coming from? Prodego talk 03:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh, bad setup. Fixed. Prodego talk 03:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Now it doesn't have the warning, but hopefully illicit code shouldn't too much of a problem, I hope. GracenotesT § 05:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Safari

{{editprotected}}Could someone make the Safari cache separet. It doesn't look like it's working the same way Mozilla is, at least not on a Mac. [ ⌘, ⌥, E ] or [ Command, Option, E ] works. --Steinninn 14:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some changes

{{editprotected}} I propose this new version. It fixes the bad HTML in the monobook.js message. It also prints both messages on the monobook.js page now, instead of only the warning (seems more consistent to me that way). And it fixes the statement for Safari (ctrl-reload button is big time bogus on Safari. It is shift-Reload and even that is no longer required [1]. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)