I made a quick runthrough of the upload directories to see how big the total
file set for each wiki is, with an eye towards getting bulk dumps of uploads
ready again.
A pretty pie chart and raw data are here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Upload_distribution%2C_June_2006
All together, current-versions of files without thumbnails total about 372
gigabytes. Commons makes up the vast majority, with over 245 gigs. English
Wikipedia squeaks in nearly another 60 gigs, German Wikipedia then just shy of
20 gb, then they start rapidly dropping off from there.
Giant tarballs are a rather unwieldy way to distribute file dumps at the larger
sizes: they require 2x the disk space (for staging complete and in-progress
builds) and of course if anyone downloads them it all comes out of our central
bandwidth.
Wegge's doing some testing with BitTorrent; it might or might not be feasible to
build torrent files that simply reference all the individual files, so we can
use hardlinks to maintain a snapshot without eating up the full disk space on
the server. This also avoids the need to keep or extract a large archive file
for the downloader.
Given the number of files (about 650k in Commons now) and their wild and crazy
filenames this might not be totally feasible, but we can hope.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dijon&curid=99187&diff=58875067&o…
It looks to me like the only thing that has changed here is a couple
of new lines have been removed, and the words "Dijon is the capital of
bourgogne and " replace "The city". However, the entire paragraph is
highlighted in red, making it hard to see what's really changed.
Maybe a case to bear in mind if anyone's playing with the diffing algorithm?
Steve
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:
Running test External image... FAILED!
Running test External image from https... FAILED!
Running test External links: Clickable images... FAILED!
Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Passed 388 of 404 tests (96.04%) FAILED!
Hi all, just wanted to let everybody know... wikimedia is fast becoming
a part of the Engineering change control and Documentation process at
Bruce Power(www.brucepower.com) a nuclear utility in SouthWestern
Ontario.
So I've got a small problem with my installation. It won't email users
who have properly configured email addresses in their preferences. The
authenticate email option is off in localsettings.php.
I go the the 'recent changes' page...
I go to 'talk' to one of the users and the 'E-mail this user' option
comes up
I click on 'email this user' and get an email form... with the
appropriate users...
I click send and get the message that the email has been sent...
But no email ever arrives at the recipient's inbox.
Similarly all email notifications of page edits and such do not work.
To put this in context I ran the following from the command line using
php...
<?php
// The message
$message = "Line 1\nLine 2\nLine 3";
// In case any of our lines are larger than 70 characters, we should use
wordwrap()
$message = wordwrap($message, 70);
// Send
mail('myaddress(a)myplace.com', 'My Subject', $message);
?>
And I received the expected results... so the php back-end to this seems
to be working fine.
Any hints tips or tricks to get the email notification working?
Nick
**************************************************************************************************
*** The contents of this email and any attachments
*** are confidential and may be privileged.
*** They are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
*** If this message has been delivered to you in error, please reply to the
*** sender to that effect, don�t forward the message to anyone
*** and delete the message from your computer.
*** Thanks for your help, and sorry for the inconvenience.
**************************************************************************************************
The info-en team on OTRS are totally overwhelmed. We are going to have
to start rejecting a lot of mail until we can get other solutions in
place (we are going to use a very general form letter for the vast
majority of mail)
This means we will be sending lots of clueless newbies to the discussion
pages on Wikipedia. If would really help if these were easer to use -
that would reduce the number coming back to us for help.
Wikia is currently using a MediaWiki extension that gives forum-like
indexes of pages. It's written by Uncyclopedia:User:Algorithm and works
really well to organise discussion pages.
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/DPLforum>
<http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Forum:Village_Dump>
I know that liquid threads is planned, and that you have discussed
similar extensions in the past (maybe even this one, I couldn't find the
thread on search) but this would be easily implemented as a temporary
solution that would be invaluable to communications.
The problems I've heard with this so far, are a dislike of the term
"forum" (a namespace is needed, currently set as "forum" on Wikia -
maybe it could be changed to something less... forumy?) and a question
on the way it deals with caching (it disables cache on forum pages I'm
told... would this be an issue for us?)
If this is possible, it would be great to get it set up quickly. I know
everyone says that about their pet projects, but I really think this can
make a difference to the big problem that the OTRS team and
communications committee are having.
Thanks,
-- sannse
As MediaWiki 2.0 is slowly moving closer, I think we should consider
replacing the current logo. The problems I have with it (and I say
that as its co-designer) are that the colors feel washed out, the
flower is asymmetrical, and the square brackets look just a tad bit
too square and ordinary.
I found a very nice flower photograph on Commons, and decided to
experiment with it a bit. The result can be found at:
http://scireview.de/wiki/logos/
The flower used here looks more like something airbrushed than a
straight crop of a photo (even though it is the latter), which I think
is an advantage for a logo. I do like the notion of using a complex
flower rather than a purely stylized one; I think that this is
allowable in the context of an entirely web-based product.
I think the colors/brightness and the brackets could use some
tweaking. I'm also not sure if I prefer the version with a shadow
behind the flower or the one without (the two people who have sent me
feedback so far prefer the one with, I have a slight preference for
without). If you want to play with it, there's an XCF link for editing
in the GIMP; all the elements of the picture are represented there as
layers.
For favicon size, we probably want to draw something from scratch
rather than resizing the logo. In the "Powered by" button size, it
could use some tweaking (perhaps some pre-processing before scaling
down).
I'd appreciate your comments on these experiments. Perhaps we should
start an open logo process when MediaWiki 2.0 comes within grasp.
Erik
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Rob Church" <robchur(a)gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:38:57 +0100
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] An issue on Cite.php extension
On 16/06/06, Rob Church <robchur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/06/06, Shinjiman <shinjiman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Someone just found out about an issue using the "Cite this article" function.
> > for example, when we see the "Wikipedia" article as of 00:33, 16 June
> > 2006, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=58859884].
> > The URL link to the "Cite this article" is linking to the current
> > version of the article. It should supposed to cite that article as of
> > that modification time, instead of the current revision , IMHO. Is
> > this really an issue about the Cite.php extension?
>
> No, but if it's an issue at all, then it's one with SpecialCite.php or
> with the core code, if we merged that functionality in.
...and I can't see why the hell this is an issue, as I can't reproduce
the problem.
Rob Church
...... as we see the screenshot from the web browser, we have the
oldid of the article which representing the previous revision of the
article. However, when we click the link "Cite the article", this will
going to the cite information for the current revision. However the
link is not quite correct, it should be the same revision number when
we browsinng a previous revision of the article. Maybe a screenshot
attached maybe make more sence to us and a reproduction of this
problem. :)
regards
Man
Hi,
It would be nice if on Wikipedia, ordinary users could delete pages
(perhaps not including their basic User talk: page) from their own
user space. Currently, every subpage that you set up exists forever
until you find an admin to delete it for you. Most likely, admins
regularly delete subpages from their own user space that they no
longer need...
Would this require a software extension, or just reconfiguration of
Wikipedia? Where is the best place to ask?
Steve
A heads-up for you alternate-DB fans:
The filearchive table for deleted image data will need to be added to the pg and
oracle schemas; also some equivalent of the locking done in FileStore.php will
need to be devised, and some abstraction put into Database.php.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
I usually put a {{delete}} to a subpage that I do not want to use anymore
and soon an admin will delete it for me. Maybe you can do that, too.
H.T.
-----Original Message-----
From: wikitech-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:04 PM
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Deletion in own userspace
6/16/06, Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> And what if they've moved an article from the main namespace to their
> userspace? How would you prevent users deleting real articles in this
> way?
Ordinary users can move articles into their userspace???
Steve
___________________________________________________
最新版 Yahoo!奇摩即時通訊 7.0，免費網路電話任你打！
http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/