Thu, Dec 28
@He7d3r - you're right, sorry; looks like I glossed over that part. Done.
Sun, Dec 24
agree that it's probably a good idea to strike vandal accounts (does action=credits even respect RevlDel?)
Nov 9 2017
May 7 2017
Jan 7 2017
See also T23175, "Add log excerpts to revdeleted diffs".
Magic linking is going away - see T145604#2925139. ISMN links would need to be implemented using templates.
Nov 15 2016
Linking to a comment on the EnWP village pump from a user who's having trouble logging in here.
Nov 4 2016
Does this mean that T96301 has been resolved?
Oct 30 2016
Oct 18 2016
There could be, but I don't know of any, and we should build to existing use cases, not hypothetical future ones.
Oct 14 2016
A good point. The maximum should always be the current year.
Sep 30 2016
Jul 20 2016
Jul 9 2016
Jul 4 2016
You may see it as being patronizing, but this is basic facts.
Jul 2 2016
@kaldari - don't get me wrong, I also want it turned off for exactly the same reasons! I just believe that the change should be made in a way that doesn't risk inconveniencing hypothetical users reliant on a long-established feature. It's hard to think of a feature that's been around longer; this predates MediaWiki.
I agree with Danny that this task is a duplicate of T47942. That task calls for magic linking to become an optional feature; there may be some people who are not in a position to use bots or gadgets to replace the functionality if it's removed entirely, and we should consider them.
May 26 2016
Copied comment from over there: adding as a blocked task because if the magic linking code is going to be addressed it should be done properly, rather than a hacky workaround in the notifications code.
Adding that as a blocking task because if the magic linking code is going to be addressed it should be done properly, rather than a hacky workaround in the notifications code.
@Quiddity - sincere apologies. I was reading on my phone and completely misinterpreted the diff. All good.
I agree with the sentiment that pages in Draft: shouldn't get a "publish" button. If anything, an action somewhere in the UI labelled "publish" that is actually "move this draft to mainspace" would be a useful feature. But that's obviously outside the scope of this task, and as noted Draft: pages aren't effectively off the public web anyhow.
May 18 2016
Edit: based on a misreading! Please ignore.
May 11 2016
See also T49402 (Better diff for revision deletions: Show indicator of what visibility restrictions were set or unset).
Mar 4 2016
Sorry for late entry of an external commenter into this discussion.
Mar 3 2016
Is this still valid now that we have global accounts?
Someone's fixed it.
Note: SUL finalization has removed the "local users" referred to in the original bug report from 2006. However as far as I'm aware the import tool is still setting rev_user = 0 (T111605). Once that's been dealt with, the possibility is there for a cleanup script to be developed to fix attribution on all imported edits.
Account unification happened (hooray!) so this is no longer necessary.
That's not a requirement for filing enhancement tasks. Disregarding for now the unreasonable nature of a request to find people talking about an idea that I just had, doing so wasn't a requirement in any of the previous tasks I filed, either. Rather than being met with a demand to justify their existence, those tasks have either been implemented, started being implemented, merged, or, for the most part, left to accumulate comments over years, as normal.
Is the patch attached to this still valid?
The answer to all your questions is "it's a user preference, so let it happen if they want it".
Feb 9 2016
Jan 27 2016
Jan 13 2016
The link to the sample conversion in the description of this task is broken.
Jan 12 2016
Jan 7 2016
Jan 6 2016
Jan 3 2016
jake wrote in the description of this bug:
Right now when an unprivileged user tries to view a deleted diff they are told that the revision has been hidden, but no why or who by.
Dec 12 2015
@lfaraone, what's the story with this?