(Sorry, I posted this in the wrong thread a few minutes ago.)
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Yusuke Matsubara whym at whym.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l wrote:
** On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
*** amir.aharoni at mail.huji.ac.il
- I think this ML top-posts. Not sure.
- Suspect that the Flow extension would allow for more flexibility, including
attaching multiple discussion threads to a specific edit or paragraph.
--
svetlana
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, at 19:25, Anthony Cole wrote:
(Sorry, I posted this in the wrong thread a
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:40 AM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
...
This is a very good idea, in itself, to help fix problems with
attribution, especially wrt 'print' editions (PDF export).
It might also be used to avoid undesirable attribution notices in the
article body,
In Facebook it's possible to edit posts and comments after posting after a
lot of users asked for it.
Why isn't it possible to change MediaWiki edit summaries after posting?
I tried looking for it in Bugzilla; I expected to find a two-digit bug for
it, but I couldn't find any at all. Of course
Its the same reason you cannot go back and modify changes to a revision.
Subsequent changes create new revisions, because edit summaries are not
versioned its not possible to change them and maintain the chain
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
I disagree. There is no chain made of summaries. They are just a
text in a table that can be altered. It's just that there is no
feature which would allow that.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:27 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
Its the same reason you cannot go back and modify changes to a
The lack of historical changes in an edit summary is a critical issue if we
are going to enable modification of them.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. There is no chain made of summaries. They are just a
text in a table that can be altered. It's
On 13 November 2014 13:40, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
The lack of historical changes in an edit summary is a critical issue if we
are going to enable modification of them.
Just to be very clear, there is no way we'd allow history-less editing of
edit summaries in MediaWiki; it's
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
I tried looking for it in Bugzilla; I expected to find a two-digit bug for
it, but I couldn't find any at all. Of course it's possible that I didn't
look well enough.
A bit different, but there is an extension
Le 13/11/2014 13:15, Amir E. Aharoni a écrit :
In Facebook it's possible to edit posts and comments after posting after a
lot of users asked for it.
Why isn't it possible to change MediaWiki edit summaries after posting?
I tried looking for it in Bugzilla; I expected to find a two-digit
2014-11-13 17:16 GMT+02:00 Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr:
Le 13/11/2014 13:15, Amir E. Aharoni a écrit :
In Facebook it's possible to edit posts and comments after posting after
a
lot of users asked for it.
Why isn't it possible to change MediaWiki edit summaries after posting?
I
Typos in edit summary are fixed by releasing an errata corrige in a
subsequent dummy edit.
Nemo
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Indeed - I am somewhat surprised by James's firm opposition.
I tend to agree with James on this one in that if the edit summaries
are to be modified then they need a revision history.
Typos in edit summary are fixed by releasing an errata corrige in a
subsequent dummy edit.
I question
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
I tried looking for it in Bugzilla; I expected to find a two-digit bug for
it, but I couldn't find any at all. Of course it's possible that I didn't
look well enough.
I found these:
WONTFIX: Allow editing of
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Derric Atzrott
datzr...@alizeepathology.com wrote:
Indeed - I am somewhat surprised by James's firm opposition.
I tend to agree with James on this one in that if the edit summaries
are to be modified then they need a revision history.
Typos in edit summary
As a longtime administrator of a MediaWiki site, I do not endorse this in
any way. There is absolutely no legitimate need to change edit summaries,
and the potential for this to be used for vandalism and trolling is
extensive. This is why users are encouraged to preview their edits, and I
see no
On Nov 13, 2014 11:43 AM, Derric Atzrott datzr...@alizeepathology.com
wrote:
Indeed - I am somewhat surprised by James's firm opposition.
I tend to agree with James on this one in that if the edit summaries
are to be modified then they need a revision history.
Typos in edit summary are
Derric Atzrott schreef op 2014/11/13 8:42:
Indeed - I am somewhat surprised by James's firm opposition.
I tend to agree with James on this one in that if the edit summaries
are to be modified then they need a revision history.
I don't know if they need an edit history per se. A log of
On Thu Nov 13 2014 at 8:27:08 AM Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 13, 2014 11:43 AM, Derric Atzrott datzr...@alizeepathology.com
wrote:
Indeed - I am somewhat surprised by James's firm opposition.
I tend to agree with James on this one in that if the edit summaries
are to
bawolff wrote:
For comparision, how many revision control systems allow editing commit
messages.
Perforce does.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I can see it being useful in two circumstances:
1) As part of the oversight right, in order to edit an edit summary without
hiding the entire revision
2) A right of a user to edit their own edit summaries, if the edit summary
is blank
Since it's possible and at least some people are interested
On 13 November 2014 16:03, Helder . helder.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Derric Atzrott
datzr...@alizeepathology.com wrote:
Indeed - I am somewhat surprised by James's firm opposition.
I tend to agree with James on this one in that if the edit summaries
are to
On Nov 13, 2014 12:45 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see it being useful in two circumstances:
1) As part of the oversight right, in order to edit an edit summary
without
hiding the entire revision
2) A right of a user to edit their own edit summaries, if the edit summary
is
I think this is a great idea and has always baffled me that you can't.
I'm also a little confused by James comment. Maintaining an edit
history of edit summaries seems overkill. As I understand it edit
summaries are for aiding other editors.
If we are worried about losing important information,
Jon Robson schreef op 2014/11/13 10:59:
I think this is a great idea and has always baffled me that you can't.
I'm also a little confused by James comment. Maintaining an edit
history of edit summaries seems overkill. As I understand it edit
summaries are for aiding other editors.
If we are
Issues arise in the fact that malicious editors can abuse it after the
initial review has been done. Or you can run into cases where offensive
material is added attacking another editor, so editor B reports the issue
and before anyone has a chance to review it editor A changes it back to
something
On Nov 13, 2014 7:09 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
Issues arise in the fact that malicious editors can abuse it after the
initial review has been done. Or you can run into cases where offensive
material is added attacking another editor, so editor B reports the issue
and before
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:09 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
Issues arise in the fact that malicious editors can abuse it after the
initial review has been done. Or you can run into cases where offensive
material is added attacking another editor, so editor B reports the issue
and
On Thu Nov 13 2014 at 4:16:21 AM Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
In Facebook it's possible to edit posts and comments after posting after a
lot of users asked for it.
Why isn't it possible to change MediaWiki edit summaries after posting?
I tried looking for it in
On 13 November 2014 18:18, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:09 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
Issues arise in the fact that malicious editors can abuse it after the
initial review has been done. Or you can run into cases where offensive
material is
Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Wow, that escalated quickly. How did we go from hey, what's the deal with
this? To YOURE BURNING THE WIKI in a few posts?
Easy: because it's a hard question, with excellent arguments on
both sides.
Clearly, people are going to make typos in edit summaries from
time to
Am I missing something? I just tried making a null edit and it didn't
change the edit summary.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2014-11-13 20:48 GMT+02:00 Steve Summit
Am I missing something? I just tried making a null edit and it didn't
change the edit summary.
It doesn't change the edit summary; it was suggested you make a null
edit, but leave an edit summary for that null edit. This way you
can make an edit that only serves the purpose of saying Hey the
On 13 November 2014 19:04, Derric Atzrott datzr...@alizeepathology.com
wrote:
Am I missing something? I just tried making a null edit and it didn't
change the edit summary.
It doesn't change the edit summary; it was suggested you make a null
edit, but leave an edit summary for that null
Mmm... the fact that something as odd as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Dummy_edit even exists says something
about the need for such a feature.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
I think allowing post-facto modification of edit summaries in the very
limited case where the edit was done by the current user, the edit
summary is currently blank, and the new summary is non-blank could be
allowed with only small amounts wiki-burning.
Review tools would have to be updated so
Im not saying that it shouldnt be allowed, what I am saying is if we are
going to brainstorm on the topic, these issues are the most obvious and
critical problems. I saw scotts last email and think that given those
limited constraints its possible without too much fuss.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at
Le 13/11/2014 18:05, Brian Wolff a écrit :
Id make the argument that modifying edit summaries in git is somewhat akin
to taking a database dump of a mediawiki install, editing the dump, and
re-importing it ;)
--bawolff
Changing all the ids in the process :-D
--
Antoine hashar Musso
Depends on how its done
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Antoine Musso hashar+...@free.fr wrote:
Le 13/11/2014 18:05, Brian Wolff a écrit :
Id make the argument that modifying edit summaries in git is somewhat
akin
to taking a database dump of a mediawiki install, editing the dump, and
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, at 23:15, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
In Facebook it's possible to edit posts and comments after posting after a
lot of users asked for it.
Why isn't it possible to change MediaWiki edit summaries after posting?
It is a very rare case compared to, say, how the diff viewer
Le 13/11/2014 16:16, Antoine Musso a écrit :
Le 13/11/2014 13:15, Amir E. Aharoni a écrit :
In Facebook it's possible to edit posts and comments after posting after a
lot of users asked for it.
Why isn't it possible to change MediaWiki edit summaries after posting?
I tried looking
Steve Summit wrote:
Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Wow, that escalated quickly. How did we go from hey, what's the deal
with this? To YOURE BURNING THE WIKI in a few posts?
Easy: because it's a hard question, with excellent arguments on
both sides.
Clearly, people are going to make typos in edit
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Yusuke Matsubara w...@whym.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
I tried looking for it in Bugzilla; I expected to find a two-digit bug for
it, but I couldn't find any at all. Of course it's possible
43 matches
Mail list logo
