There is a page on Meta;
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Changing_username
where users can ask to rename there account to a other name.
It looks like this is not done since of august.
It whould be nice if those users can get there rename.
I have tried to clean out the page. I noticed there are requests from
users have have good reason to ask for a change. But also from users who
have made extreemly few edits or do a request of a name change that does
not make sence, at least to me. Like "OTTo" to "OTTO" or
"Sound::jacking" to "Sound::Jacking".
If the reason, or part of the reason why the rename is not done anymore
because it is a lot of work ruels can be created to reduse the number of
requests.
So that when a good long time editor who used in the beginning a
nickname but now whould like to use his real name can get a renaming done.
--
[[w:nl:gebruiker:walter]]
i integrated HTML2FPDF into mediawiki and it seems to work...
now my question is if there's a better methode...
class OutputPage got an new member called $pdfText.. I duplicated the
Output and out function... then i fill the body in $pdfText.. then i used
HTML2FPDF (www.fpdf.org, http://html2fpdf.sourceforge.net/) to create a nice
PDF... for example http://www.mikrocontroller.net/wiki/PSoC gets
http://www.mikrocontroller.net/wikifiles/d/d3/Test.pdf so this is more or
less what i want (copyright,... will be added if the rest is ok ;) btw this
is not my wiki... the changes are running on my local machine but there is a
discussion on this wiki where this issue came up)
this should be right but now to my real problem..how to get a PDF-button in
the bar where edit,watch...
my changes are:
in SkinTemplate.php
wfProfileIn( "$fname-pdf" );
...
wfProfileOut( "$fname-pdf" );
index.php
gets a pdf action
languages/Language.php
+ta[\'ca-pdf\'] = new Array(\'p\',\'Make a PDF file from this Article.\');
languages/LanguageDe.php
+'tooltip-pdf' => 'Sie können aus diesem Artikel eine PDF-File erstellen.
[alt-p]',
+'pdf' => 'PDF',
are these the right places to add this functinality ?? or will this bring
translation problems or something like this on the plan ??
i hope sb can help me... if it's ok i'll look over my code once again and
make it a bit more nice looking...
73 de oe6jwf / hans wilhelm
I've just noticed that with 1.4 raw text isn't sent compressed.
Since wikitext is already stored gzipped, would it make sense to offer
content-type gzip instead of decompressing on the server?
Most agents support this content type and AFAICS it'd be faster for the
client, and save our bandwidth and cpu time.
--
Jim
Writing this idea off by saying "its the wiki way" is somewhat of a cop out.
If every discussion was settled with that argument, then there wouldn't even
be the option of protecting pages. Just because someone *shouldn't* do
something, doesn't mean they won't. I'm betting there are enough trolls out
there to prove that a protection system is needed. If not now, I'm sure
it'll come when a forum system is in place.
I'm not saying that the security should be turned on from the very start,
but I do think it should at least be included so that it can be turned on if
need be.
Another good reason for a good security system for talk pages is because
this software is used by a lot of other people than just the wikipedia
sites, and I've heard from quite a bit of them that they wish the software
had this type of feature.
Ryan Lane
Naval Oceanographic Office
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikitech-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org
> [SMTP:wikitech-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:05 AM
> To: Wikimedia developers
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] French wikipedians requesting to install
> Wikifor um extension on French Wikipedia
>
> Lane, Ryan wrote:
> > I personally don't understand the reasoning to want to edit other
> people's
> > posts. Can you give an example of a good reason to edit someone's post?
> > Truthfully, I think its more of a detriment than a benefit to be able to
> > edit someone's posts. I can think of a ton of bad reasons to edit
> another
> > persons post, but very very few good reasons.
>
> It's the wiki way. Having the ability to edit what other people write
> gives rise to a culture of co-operation rather than confrontation.
>
> We don't have a strong culture of refactoring, but it is traditional
> in a wiki to refactor discussions, which means, for someone to come
> through and take a large discussion and neutrally summarize what it
> was all about. Everything is in the edit history, and of course
> people can refactor the refactoring.
>
> Basically, having a system open where people *can* do something bad,
> but don't, gives rise to a spirit of helpful togetherness. Building
> barriers out of fear of bad behavior gives rise to a spirit of
> mistrust.
>
> > It would be MUCH better to have a system where the user making the
> > post allowed/disallowed people to edit their posts. If I'm signing
> > my posts, I don't want someone to edit it to change my opinion to
> > side with theirs. For instance, if this email were a part of a
> > thread in a forum, you could change it to make it look like I side
> > with your argument, and most people wouldn't notice.
>
> We don't really have any problems with people doing stuff like that.
> It would be a massive social faux pas to edit someone's post to change
> your opinion. Just because it is *possible* doesn't mean that it's a
> *problem*.
>
> It's like saying we need a law to prevent people from going into
> elevators together, because if we don't, people might stab each other.
> Well, yeah, they might, but we're better of in a positive social
> environment than a too-cautious social environment.
>
> This is similar to a discussion we had about protecting user pages,
> and there was very universal agreement that with only rare exceptions
> (heroic vandal fighters like RickK for example, whose user page would
> be a constant mess, and even there of course I would encourage him to
> try to keep it unprotected if he can) user pages should be unprotected.
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
May I propose to _close_ this thread here now ?
The interested ones could open a page on
http://meta.wikipedia.org/Wikiforum for exchanging their views, the pros
and cons.
I was happy once to get to know the wiki-principle, which was _the_
solution for getting rid of forums where you have to browse all the
postings of a thread. Nothing for unpatient readers like me
T.
ATTN: David Cameron, Marcus Kazmierczak, Ryan Lane, Frank Wales, John
Straffin:
I can't exactly deal with the plenty of mails referring to Auto-Login /
Auto-Account-Creation and similar, but different ideas... so I decided
quickly to post, what I have and what works for me.
The whole story in on http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1360
Auto-login / Auto-account-creation by hostname for intranet MediaWikis
Basically, every
RETURN NEW USER() in every return path in loadFromSession()
is now changed to not return immediately, but to call my new function
loadfromLUT(), which either gets some info via gethostbyaddr() in
Setup.php and the lookup table or actually returns the new user() object
(if a user comes to wiki, who is not listed in the file lookup table, he
stays "anonymous" without a login chance, because I disabled the manual
login and logout paths).
Please check http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1360 . I just
uploaded the code according to the flowchart, the code is for User.php
of mediawiki 1.3.7 and only modifies the existings loadfromSession() as
explained.
Sorry for cross-posting !
Tom
>> I personally don't understand the reasoning to want to edit other
people's
>> posts. Can you give an example of a good reason to edit someone's post?
>
>It's usefull to add line feed inside a mail to answer a specific
>question. In wiki this can be used to obfuscate thread but it's
>more often correctly used.
>
Yes, adding line feed is useful in email. But you aren't destructively
updating the email, you are making a copy of the mail, and responding to
those points in your own email. This is exactly how normal forums work. I'd
have to say most of the talk pages I've seen don't truly make much sense. A
lot of the time they are used incorrectly, and you can't always follow the
discussion (if there is actually any discussion going on at all). In a real
forum you see a time trail, and a discussion that (generally) makes sense.
I understand the want to refactor discussion pages, or to summarize a
discussion page. Those should be separate pages, and any changes should be a
copy of the posts, not the posts themselves. I understand there is a history
and anyone can follow a discussion through the history, but that is a pretty
poor way of following a discussion.
>> Truthfully, I think its more of a detriment than a benefit to be able to
>> edit someone's posts. I can think of a ton of bad reasons to edit another
>> persons post, but very very few good reasons.
>>
>> It would be MUCH better to have a system where the user making the post
>> allowed/disallowed people to edit their posts. If I'm signing my posts, I
>> don't want someone to edit it to change my opinion to side with theirs.
For
>> instance, if this email were a part of a thread in a forum, you could
change
>> it to make it look like I side with your argument, and most people
wouldn't
>> notice.
>
>We have history to catch such behavior, w/o history I'll agree with
>you. Also what about vandalism, spam etc. A feature to disable edit
>of comments means than some sort of user (sysop ?) must be able to
>edit/remove other comments, not a good idea to give more work to
>sysops. It'll also raise the problem of giving more power to sysops,
>seeing some flame war about sysops power I doubt allowing only them
>to edit comments will be welcome.
>
Yes, I agree with you here. Vandalism and spam would definitely be a
problem, and would put a burden on sysops. I don't think a system like this
would work on the larger wikis. I'm sure the small and medium sized wikis
would be fine with this. I'm sure most organizations that are using
mediawiki internally would actually prefer being able to control this.
I guess I could always just write an extension later on for this type of
functionality. I'm just playing lobbyist for smaller wikis.
Ryan Lane
Naval Oceanographic Office
A while ago I started some experimental client software that took the output
from wiki2xml, I got sidetracked but now I've got some more time I'm
wanting to get back to it.
A few questions:
I've searched the list and see there is now a proper flex/bison parser. The
wiki2xml convertor has not had any checkins for a while so I presume it's
now defunct?
Does the flex/bison parser produce roughly the same XML as wiki2xml? (same
tag names, nesting etc)
Is there a DTD, XML schema for the wikiXML? How about a rough spec?
Jim