Last modified: 2011-09-01 21:35:25 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T7865, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 5865 - Warning on editing other user's userpage
Warning on editing other user's userpage
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Page editing (Other open bugs)
All All
: Low enhancement with 6 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
: patch, patch-reviewed
: 16997 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-05-07 20:25 UTC by Mormegil
Modified: 2011-09-01 21:35 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---

A patch implementing this feature request (1.62 KB, patch)
2006-05-07 20:26 UTC, Mormegil
Rob's patch with a namespace check (1.77 KB, patch)
2008-08-09 03:38 UTC, Emufarmers

Description Mormegil 2006-05-07 20:25:46 UTC
Often, a user trying to write a message to another user uses a user: page instead of the talk page.

So, when editing another user's page, an edit warning should be given.

(See also bug 2352 – "New feature to automatically protect user: page".)
Comment 1 Mormegil 2006-05-07 20:26:27 UTC
Created attachment 1694 [details]
A patch implementing this feature request
Comment 2 Rob Church 2006-05-07 20:27:25 UTC
Don't see any massive benefit to this, to be honest. Users tend to go for the
"new section" link in a lot of cases, and would notice its absence from the user
Comment 3 Mormegil 2006-05-07 20:33:38 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)

This affects mainly the case when the user's page is nonexistent -- a user intending to write a message clicks on 
a red link without noticing it leads to the user page instead of the talk page (i.e. in the case when you don't 
use either [edit] or [+]). I see that quite often on cs:. Of course, when you are writing to a long-term user, you 
are likely to notice the difference between a userpage and a talkpage. :-)
Comment 4 lɛʁi לערי ריינהארט 2006-05-07 20:40:38 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Don't see any massive benefit to this, to be honest. Users tend to go for the
> "new section" link in a lot of cases, and would notice its absence from the user
> page.

When trying to contact users in wikies using other scripts or languages it still
happens that user pages get edited by accident.
Comment 5 Mormegil 2006-06-08 09:39:33 UTC
Is there any _negative_ aspect of this? There is a positive one for sure,
because this does happen. See e.g.
or take a look at [[en:Special:Log/move]] and notice it there, too.
Comment 6 Rob Church 2006-06-15 06:56:34 UTC
Added in SVN trunk, r14768, although I didn't use the provided patch.
Comment 7 Mormegil 2006-06-22 16:58:12 UTC
Reopening, obviously reverted in SVN immediately, r14769
Comment 8 Andrew Garrett 2008-08-08 10:05:43 UTC
Interest seems to be lost (apparently, it's not still causing problems). Marking as WONTFIX for now.
Comment 9 Mormegil 2008-08-08 15:25:47 UTC
I have no idea how you came to “interest seems to be lost”. (And “it’s not still causing problems?” Has anything changed? OBTW on test.wp, there is a modified version [[MediaWiki:Editing]], so that the information shows up at least in the page caption.) I have filed a feature request (not a bug report!), and provided a working patch. That patch has been rejected, and the alternative solution reverted immediately as broken. After that, this request has been ignored.

I am not sure what should I have done to make the “interest not seem to be lost”? Update the patch every week to keep it up to date with the current trunk, and let it be ignored anyway? Bug some developer every day on IRC? Is that really necessary?

Marking a feature request WONTFIX because it is a bad idea, or because it cannot be easily implemented into MediaWiki, etc., that’s fine with me. But marking a feature request (and such a simple one!) as WONTFIX just because everyone ignores it?

Never mind, I’ll keep my JavaScript.
Comment 10 Petr Adamek 2008-08-08 15:32:23 UTC
I definitelly agree with Mormegil. This request make sense for me and if suggested sollution is wrong, the reason should be explained.
Comment 11 Emufarmers 2008-08-09 03:38:11 UTC
Created attachment 5154 [details]
Rob's patch with a namespace check
Comment 12 P.Copp 2009-01-12 20:33:50 UTC
*** Bug 16997 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 13 John Du Hart 2011-09-01 03:57:14 UTC
Fixed in r95930
Comment 14 John Du Hart 2011-09-01 21:35:25 UTC
Reverted in r96046

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.