If one attempts with the new software to edit a redirected page (by
fiddling with the URL) one is simply redirected to the destination.
So it becomes impossible to resurrect a page once it has been redirected.
Fred Bauder.
I just tried to submit an error report on a display problem... it saved
okay, but then I realised that I forgot to include my email, or where in
the wikipedia I saw the problem etc... so I attempted to add a comment,
and it didn't want me to. So then I tried to write a seperate error
report to attach a screenshot, and it timed out and gave a 'zero data'
error. So I tried to resubmit the report AGAIN and it told me not to
double-submit. GRRRRRRR...
It's not like the problem is a big issue - Netscape does not like
right-aligned inline images - they interfere with the display of the
floating toolbar and push it down to the bottom of the page below the
entry. It's a nuisance and it makes the page look messy and be a bit
more awkward to use, but it's not a major problem. The buttons still
work, they're just in the wrong place.
I'll put the screenshot in here since I went to all the trouble of
taking 3 shots and pasting them together in photoshop and resizing them
etc...
--
Karen AKA Kajikit
You can take the dragon out of Alfandra, but you can never take Alfandra
out of the dragon (or the Kitty)...
Come and visit my part of the web:
Kajikit's Corner: http://Kajikit.netfirms.com/
Aussie Support Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AussieSupport
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
and now Ample Aussies Mailing List:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/
Love and huggles to all!
On Tuesday 30 July 2002 12:01 pm, you wrote:
> I volunteered ages ago to try & reorganise naming conventions, and tie
> them in with things like presentation conventions, Wiki Projects and
> "basic topic" pages.
> I'm still mulling it over, and I'e got to the point where I'd like to
> start laying out ideas.
> There's no way this can be cleanly refactored overnight, so I'm thinking
> of using the Meta wiki, to first set out a page scheme and then start
> refactoring. That way "normal service" (!) won't be disturbed on the
> wikipedia: namespace.
> Any objections if I discreetly set up in a corner of MetaWikipedia?
>
> tarquin
If you are planning on doing major work then I also suggest that you do as
Lee indicated and make a /Temp page so that everybody can monitor the process
and help out easily (especially me since I promised to do the exact same
thing). However, if you are doing work that will not really leave the page
looking incomplete or messy during the process then I say we just un-protect
the page and let you go at it (I can't remember, are your a sysop? We have so
many now...).
Aside....
Frankly, I really don't know why we still have a metapedia -- it is mainly a
repository of junk from the main site and has never really served its
intended purpose of meta discussion, random chit chat about the project and
working on projects.
In my opinion having two separate RecentChanges for Wikipedia and Metapedia
is why activity is comatose on the meta. But then I would be uncomfortable
about having something like a meta namespace unless the display of meta pages
in RecentChanges were turned off by default for users -- we are first an
encyclopedia not a social club.
--mav
maveric149 wrote in part:
>Again I would like to restate my proposal to have an 'old hand' status that
>would allow users that have been around a while and are generally trusted to
>move pages and edit protected pages.
I don't think that I've done this before,
so I'd like to officially state my agreement on this.
30 days/30 edits, mentioned before, seems reasonable offhand.
Is there agreement that we do want to open up these two functions,
and that the only thing left to discussion is the criteria?
>Aside.... Is the name "Pedia Wiki" used anymore? Or does our wikiware have no
>name? :-(
Sure it has a name: "Phase III Software".
Sounds like a .com startup.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>
On Tuesday 30 July 2002 10:18 am, you wrote:
> That's actually a good reason *not* to use HTML. When you start doing "a
> lot more" it will also be "a lot more" difficult to understand and rewrite
> what you wrote. WIkipedia is not just about you writing but about you
> writing and others rewriting it. :-)
>
> -- Jan Hidders
I couldn't agree more.-- we are here to write an encyclopedia, not win
prizes of nifty looking and complex webpages. Let's keep are focus people.
<hint>WikiTable parsing</hint>
(Sorry, there is no wiki equivalent of that tag ;-)
--mav
>Somehow in the last few weeks/months the cookie on my
>portable has gotten messed up and I cannot remember/hack the current
>password phrase for the wikipedia site. My meta account still works
>fine, apparently I never changed the password phrase there.
I added your email address to your user record. You can help me test
out the "e-mail me a new password" function now. :-)
> We can do psychological testing to determine when simplicity
> switches, but other people will switch it at slightly different
> times. Best all around to allow both methods.
This I have to disagree with totally. Leaving in a mix of both is
horrible. Our markup here serves a different purpose than other
markup languages. It /must/ be editable by novices. Wikitext that
produces a nice page, but can't be edited, is bad wikitext. For an
extreme example, see the article "Duesseldorf"--this is precisely the
kind of abomination that allowing too much HTML produces. It might
be a fine article, but it will never be improved because it's
impossible to edit. That's fine for web page, but not for a wiki.
As comfortable as all of us are with HTML, /we/ aren't the kind of
people we want editing articles (except maybe those on computer
subjects). We want Bridge players writing about Bridge, and cat
breeders writing about cats, and campers writing about camping--the
kind of people who have never even heard of HTML are the kind of
people we want most to attract and make use of. We computer nerds
are used to dealing with special syntaxes; it is we who should adapt
to them, not the other way around.
On Tuesday 30 July 2002 10:34 pm, you wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have been inactive a while. Can someone tell me whether the user
> contribution page is going to return to listing contributions or is it
> going to stick with the recent changes format of within last 30 days?
> Was this change due to a performance issue or as a result of refactoring
> the wiki software?
>
> Personally I found the old format extremely useful in quickly browsing
> to subjects that I had previously found interesting and was able to
> contribute to. It was also fun/useful to be able to see a list of my
> contributions without me having to build and maintain a list manually.
> Easier to find skimpy entries or augment articles of interest with
> additional information.
>
> It was also useful on the occasion a few months ago when I was labeled
> <b>TROLL</b>. In response to my defensive reaction to this offensive
> allegation, Rgamble actually looked up a few of my contributions and
> affirmed that he/she thought I was contributing more than I was damaging
> and that he/she therefore did not consider me a troll.
>
> As things stand right now on the contribution page he/she would have
> been unable to respond semi-quantitatively due to an inability to easily
> audit a random sampling of past contributions.
>
> mirwin
I just added a link to all of your contribs since Feb 8, 2002.
--mav
>Another page that mangles itself, with a table this time. I wonder if
>it's the result of a page wider than will fit on the screen?
>
>http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Zhou_Dynasty_%28690_AD_-_705_AD%29
I'm beginning to agree with Neil that I'll have to do some
browser sniffing and put out different code for Netscape.
> I have been inactive a while. Can someone tell me whether the
> user contribution page is going to return to listing contributions
> or is it going to stick with the recent changes format of within
> last 30 days?
The limits are important, because otherwise some of the lists would be
thousands of entries and bog down the server. But the count limit and
the time limit are both completely selectable in the URL. I don't
want to have links on the page for anything more than 30 days or 500
results, because then they might get spidered. But if you want to see
you contributions, just make yourself a link on your own page with a
URL that has a large day count, like this:
http://www.wikipedia.com/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Mi…
It will be slow, but it will give you the info.