I'm not sure if this is a generic problem, but see: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Enriched_uranium
The following image's text doesn't scale with the image: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Image:Uranium_enrichment_prop...
The image link in the article is: [[Image:Uranium enrichment proportions.svg|right|200px|thumb|Proportions of uranium-238 (blue) and uranium-235 (red) found naturally versus grades that are enriched by separating the two isotopes atom-by-atom using various methods that all require a massive investment in time and money.]]
I've checked on Firefox 3.0.3 and IE 7.0
I believe that this must be a recent change - I check that article semi-regularly (it's on my watchlist along with other nuclear topics) and I don't recall seeing any problems with it...
George Herbert wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a generic problem, but see: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Enriched_uranium
The following image's text doesn't scale with the image: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Image:Uranium_enrichment_prop...
The image link in the article is: [[Image:Uranium enrichment proportions.svg|right|200px|thumb|Proportions of uranium-238 (blue) and uranium-235 (red) found naturally versus grades that are enriched by separating the two isotopes atom-by-atom using various methods that all require a massive investment in time and money.]]
I've checked on Firefox 3.0.3 and IE 7.0
I believe that this must be a recent change - I check that article semi-regularly (it's on my watchlist along with other nuclear topics) and I don't recall seeing any problems with it...
Although it's still unclear why the 200px size is not rendering properly, I edited the page to use the 205px size, and it looks correct now.
Clearly there is a cached version of the 205px image that was rendered while the scaler was still functioning properly:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Uranium_enrichment_...
Whereas any new/recent images are ugly.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Uranium_enrichment_... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Uranium_enrichment_... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Uranium_enrichment_...
I edited the page to use the 205px version to make the article look good for now, but this obviously doesn't solve the underlying issue.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Trevor Parscal wrote:
Although it's still unclear why the 200px size is not rendering properly, I edited the page to use the 205px size, and it looks correct now.
Clearly there is a cached version of the 205px image that was rendered while the scaler was still functioning properly:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Uranium_enrichment_proportions.svg/205px-Uranium_enrichment_proportions.svg.png
Borked now, alas. :)
I edited the page to use the 205px version to make the article look good for now, but this obviously doesn't solve the underlying issue.
What's odd is that the text *layout* seems to be scaling with size, but the rendered glyphs are a fixed size, and not antialiased. This may indicate a problem with the font configuration on the new image servers.
- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Brion Vibber wrote:
Trevor Parscal wrote:
Although it's still unclear why the 200px size is not rendering properly, I edited the page to use the 205px size, and it looks correct now.
Clearly there is a cached version of the 205px image that was rendered while the scaler was still functioning properly:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Uranium_enrichment_proportions.svg/205px-Uranium_enrichment_proportions.svg.pngBorked now, alas. :)
I edited the page to use the 205px version to make the article look good for now, but this obviously doesn't solve the underlying issue.
What's odd is that the text *layout* seems to be scaling with size, but the rendered glyphs are a fixed size, and not antialiased. This may indicate a problem with the font configuration on the new image servers.
I've disabled bitmap fonts in fontconfig on the image scalers, which seems to be helping. We'll have to see about getting that into our standard configuration... and of course confirm it doesn't cause any other problems!
Offhand it looks like it was rendering with the X11 bitmap Helvetica font, but not scaling the bitmaps to match the metrics.
- -- brion
Thanks all!
-george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Brion Vibber wrote:
Trevor Parscal wrote:
Although it's still unclear why the 200px size is not rendering properly, I edited the page to use the 205px size, and it looks correct now.
Clearly there is a cached version of the 205px image that was rendered while the scaler was still functioning properly:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Uranium_enrichment_proportions.svg/205px-Uranium_enrichment_proportions.svg.pngBorked now, alas. :)
I edited the page to use the 205px version to make the article look good for now, but this obviously doesn't solve the underlying issue.
What's odd is that the text *layout* seems to be scaling with size, but the rendered glyphs are a fixed size, and not antialiased. This may indicate a problem with the font configuration on the new image servers.
I've disabled bitmap fonts in fontconfig on the image scalers, which seems to be helping. We'll have to see about getting that into our standard configuration... and of course confirm it doesn't cause any other problems!
Offhand it looks like it was rendering with the X11 bitmap Helvetica font, but not scaling the bitmaps to match the metrics.
- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkkIrSQACgkQwRnhpk1wk4763ACgy368ENC2augWXz/qgBmAC1NW bOkAn0pEZwnm/kNpC8WbKTXH8yfs4CgL =LSgc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hi, I am trying to know, how to do a PRIVATE article in a wiki. A PRIVATE article is an article which it only can be watched by the creator ( In general , not by all ). Anybody knows how to do it?. Is there any feature in the mediawiki software or in any extension to do it?.
Thanks.
Javier Bueno. _________________________________________________________________ ¿Sigue el calor? Consulta MSN El tiempo http://eltiempo.es.msn.com/
I found a extension named Page authentication Page-By-Page and I have tried to use it. Theoretically, I can define a list of user who they can access to some private pages. I have tried it but it has been impossible. I have followed the steps (correctly, I think) but I have create a page private to me. The problem is I can access to it using another user.
Anybody had the same problem?
Thanks.
Javier Bueno.
From: malagutidomp@hotmail.com> To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:15:10 +0000> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Private areas in thre Wiki> > Hi, I am trying to know, how to do a PRIVATE article in a wiki. A PRIVATE article is an article which it only can be watched by the creator ( In general , not by all ). Anybody knows how to do it?. Is there any feature in the mediawiki software or in any extension to do it?.> > Thanks.> > Javier Bueno.> _________________________________________________________________> ¿Sigue el calor? Consulta MSN El tiempo> http://eltiempo.es.msn.com/%3E _______________________________________________> Wikitech-l mailing list> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_________________________________________________________________ ¿Eres un cotilla? Disfruta de todas las novedades en MSN Corazón http://entretenimiento.es.msn.com/corazon/
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:15 AM, javi bueno malagutidomp@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi, I am trying to know, how to do a PRIVATE article in a wiki. A PRIVATE article is an article which it only can be watched by the creator ( In general , not by all ). Anybody knows how to do it?. Is there any feature in the mediawiki software or in any extension to do it?.
Please see:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Preventing_access
Quoting:
"If you need per-page or partial page access restrictions, you are advised to install an appropriate content management package. MediaWiki was not written to provide per-page access restrictions, and almost all hacks or patches promising to add them will likely have flaws somewhere . . .
"MediaWiki is designed for two basic access modes:
1. Everyone can view every single page on the wiki (with the possible exception of a few special pages). This is the mode used by Wikipedia and its sister projects. 2. Anonymous users can only view the Main Page and login page, and cannot edit any page. This is basically the same as the above, in terms of technical implementation (just an extra check for every page view), which is why it exists. This is the mode of operation used by certain private wikis such as those used by various Wikimedia committees.
"If you intend to have different view permissions than that, MediaWiki is not designed for your usage. (See bug 1924.) Data is not necessarily clearly delineated by namespace, page name, or other criteria, and there are a lot of leaks you'll have to plug if you want to make it so (see security issues with authorization extensions for a sample). Other wiki software may be more suitable for your purpose."
The page also contains the ways you can attempt to contort MediaWiki into doing something like what you want, but you're not advised to use MediaWiki for this purpose. It's not designed for it and it will much more of a pain to do it than you're expecting, guaranteed.
Hi, thank you for the information. I have found another extension similar to Page-by-page and I cannot do it works fine. I am doing something wrong. The extension is named CrudeProtection : http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CrudeProtection and the restriction only works when I create the page. For example : <protect>User1</protect> gives permissions to read the page to User1. If I create it using User2, an "Access Denied" page is shown on the screen ( Fine! ), but then, if I try to read the page again I (User2) can see it.
Anybody knows what I am doing wrong? Why is the restriction working only on page creation?
Thank you.
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:05:43 -0400> From: Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com> To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Private areas in thre Wiki> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:15 AM, javi bueno malagutidomp@hotmail.com wrote:> > Hi, I am trying to know, how to do a PRIVATE article in a wiki. A PRIVATE article is an article which it only can be watched by the creator ( In general , not by all ). Anybody knows how to do it?. Is there any feature in the mediawiki software or in any extension to do it?.> > Please see:> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Preventing_access%3E > Quoting:> > "If you need per-page or partial page access restrictions, you are> advised to install an appropriate content management package.> MediaWiki was not written to provide per-page access restrictions, and> almost all hacks or patches promising to add them will likely have> flaws somewhere . . .> > "MediaWiki is designed for two basic access modes:> > 1. Everyone can view every single page on the wiki (with the> possible exception of a few special pages). This is the mode used by> Wikipedia and its sister projects.> 2. Anonymous users can only view the Main Page and login page, and> cannot edit any page. This is basically the same as the above, in> terms of technical implementation (just an extra check for every page> view), which is why it exists. This is the mode of operation used by> certain private wikis such as those used by various Wikimedia> committees.> > "If you intend to have different view permissions than that, MediaWiki> is not designed for your usage. (See bug 1924.) Data is not> necessarily clearly delineated by namespace, page name, or other> criteria, and there are a lot of leaks you'll have to plug if you want> to make it so (see security issues with authorization extensions for a> sample). Other wiki software may be more suitable for your purpose."> > The page also contains the ways you can attempt to contort MediaWiki> into doing something like what you want, but you're not advised to use> MediaWiki for this purpose. It's not designed for it and it will much> more of a pain to do it than you're expecting, guaranteed.> > _______________________________________________> Wikitech-l mailing list> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_________________________________________________________________ ¿Sigue el calor? Consulta MSN El tiempo http://eltiempo.es.msn.com/
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:20 AM, javi bueno malagutidomp@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi, thank you for the information. I have found another extension similar to Page-by-page and I cannot do it works fine. I am doing something wrong. The extension is named CrudeProtection : http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CrudeProtection and the restriction only works when I create the page. For example : <protect>User1</protect> gives permissions to read the page to User1. If I create it using User2, an "Access Denied" page is shown on the screen ( Fine! ), but then, if I try to read the page again I (User2) can see it.
Anybody knows what I am doing wrong? Why is the restriction working only on page creation?
Ugh...
The "What it does not do" is longer than my arm. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CrudeProtection#What_it_does_not_do....
No surprise if that thing is broken, and the author of a article can bypass the "protection". Your example seems rigth. <protect>User1</protect> sould "Disallow all and Allow User1". But is not what is doing, and is allow User2. It looks broken to me. More broken than what "What it does not do" suggest, that is already very broken.
A fun experimental idea:
1) Force all users to logon with a .htpassword, so apache know the name of the user
2) Some sort of conditional mod_rewrite rule that send wiki.php?page=John/ArtibleFoo to forbiddenacces.php, if username is not John ( it seems it will use %{REMOTE_USER} and RemoteConv somehow). Disabling acces based on authentificated user + url build. This will force users to build urls in a particular way ( everything inside John/ is private to John) but that is. Anyway I don't know how to build that particular set of mod_rewrite rules, or If is posible.
You can assign access restrictions by namespace using the Lockdown extension. That should be fairly safe, though I give no guarantees. If you find it broken in some way, please tell me.
It does not support per-page restrictions, though. It also does not support the notion of a page "owner". It just restricts access per namespace, according to user group.
-- daniel
Would it no still be possible to edit an article not in /John and then transclude the /John article into the new page in the same manner as a template?
-----Original Message----- From: wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tei Sent: 31 October 2008 12:57 To: Wikimedia developers Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Private areas in thre Wiki
[Snip]
A fun experimental idea:
1) Force all users to logon with a .htpassword, so apache know the name of the user
2) Some sort of conditional mod_rewrite rule that send wiki.php?page=John/ArtibleFoo to forbiddenacces.php, if username is not John ( it seems it will use %{REMOTE_USER} and RemoteConv somehow). Disabling acces based on authentificated user + url build. This will force users to build urls in a particular way ( everything inside John/ is private to John) but that is. Anyway I don't know how to build that particular set of mod_rewrite rules, or If is posible.
P Please think of the environment before you print this email
________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please return it to the address it came from telling them it is not for you and then delete it from your system. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses but this in no way indicates that the message is virus free. Teleperformance is a trading style of MM Teleperformance Ltd: Reg No. 02060289 England: Registered Office: St James House, Moon Street, Bristol, BS2 8QY. VAT No.763 0980 18 _______________________________________________________________________
Simon Orr wrote:
Would it no still be possible to edit an article not in /John and then transclude the /John article into the new page in the same manner as a template?
Yep. There's a number of ways to workaround apache/mod_rewrite based per page permissions.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
