Jul 19 2019
Jul 4 2019
I think there are 2 separate things here:
Jul 2 2019
What does "interrupted" mean? What creates that interruption? Can you point to examples? It's unclear to me what the problem is.
Jun 27 2019
Jun 21 2019
@Amorymeltzer Hmm, I see.
Jun 19 2019
@Amorymeltzer Using signatures in this way isn't necessarily abusive or harassment.
Jun 7 2019
This is particularly a problem with page navigation templates.
Thanks for the link, @Jonesey95. That was exactly the type of bot task I envisioned. I've also been accumulating my own list of faulty signatures in a similar manner, so perhaps they could be added to the next BRFA.
Jun 5 2019
That's true, but I think both parts of the problem need to be taken into consideration when determining the best course of action. @WOSlinker's suggested signature validation checks would be ideal, but if they take a while to get implemented (or are never implemented), we'll have to come up with our own active solutions in the meantime. Bots that fix all of the prior cases may also be able to help editors with newly switched misformatted signatures correct the formatting errors (perhaps à la BracketBot). Then again, it might be better to approach such issues with a more personal touch.
Jun 3 2019
I think we're well past the point of easily catching up on en.WP at least. But for dealing with the current problem, I think if we identify the signatures that are problematic, we can use a bot to do a one-time run for each username (after ensuring the user has received a message to change their username if they haven't already changed their username). Of course, this doesn't solve the long-term problem, but it does at least allow more systematic handling of prior problematic content (and a new signature filter wouldn't fix previous mistakes).
May 21 2019
May 18 2019
@thiemowmde This indeed appears to be the same problem my bug described, but this sums it up much more succinctly, and has more useful details.
@EBernhardson @dcausse @Krinkle I notice you three worked on the recent CirrusSearch changes; perhaps you can shed some light on where this is coming from (or if it's even coming from CirrusSearch, as opposed to core).
May 15 2019
I agree with the concerns @Jdforrester-WMF brought up: having it done server-side after the page saves would definitely go against my expectations. If it ends up implemented this way, it should have a very clear opt-out mechanism (or perhaps even be opt-in). Also, perhaps it should be opted out by default for those who already have the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box checked (not sure if there's really any correlation there, though).
May 14 2019
@Reedy At the time, I was trying to match pairs of ref tags, like:
May 10 2019
Reading the previous comments, I'm not clear that the original reasons for closing this actually address this report's request directly. To reply to Brion's comment, one can test a whether a redirect works as expected by clicking the large link that the redirect page produces. To reply to Huji's comment, the links that the redirect page generate when the redirect is created are irrelevant to the links accessed when switching between tabs; these are two entirely separate workflows.
May 9 2019
May 8 2019
Since I think I was a bit unclear above, I'll give an example: let's say I wanted to open the article Logical fallacy in my browser from AWB. Because Logical fallacy is a redirect, I would end up at Formal fallacy. But I've found I sometimes want to open the redirect itself in my browser.
@Reedy AWB doesn't need to know it's a redirect; it just needs to add &redirect=no to the URL if opening the title as a redirect.
Removing Ctrl-Z undo entirely would be better than the current state. The current state of undoing rules doesn't seem useful to anyone; I rarely find myself needing to undo rules, and if one needs to, they can just delete the rule.
Apr 11 2018
I'd be fine with that; it would just be nice to be able to see all the page editors simultaneously, but it's not vital. It's just a minor annoyance.
Apr 10 2018
Apr 1 2018
I found out what I'm looking for: the global flag adds the behavior of finding every possible match. This would be useful in some cases, so it might be useful as a checkbox, but it should definitely not be on by default.
Never mind. I think this is the intended regex behavior. There are workarounds, so it's fine. There may be a flag that does my intended behavior in regex; more research is necessary.