Wikipedia Talk: Visual Editor/Archive 4

Posted on

I got it again. I had to provide our offset in bytes where some section starts

You can check virtual disk information Cursorspot the unRAID command console:

fdisk -l /mnt/disks/Windows/vdisk1.img

Red values ​​stared at me. The result looks like this:

Device initial sector size ID type

vdisk1.img1*2048 206847 204800 100MB 7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT

To find the total byte offset, multiply the starting market value by the sector duration to get the byte offset. In this case, I wanted to help mount vdisk1.img2. 

mount -r -t ntfs -o loop,offset=105906176 /mnt/disks/Windows/vdisk1.img /mnt/test
This is almost certainly an archive of previous questions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you’d like to help start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current discussion page.

Indeed. I’ve waited forever for this. Not for me, but for others. 77.49.33.110 10:24 am (colloquial) July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Don’t you think ==
So|}

TheyReproach the World™ –108.38.191.162 (talk) 19:17 July 18, 2013 (UTC)

A/B Testing Results

What exactly was that? Adam Kuerden (talk) July 01, 2013 11:41 PM (UTC)

Presumably they can be published in the meta:Research:VisualEditor effect for newly registered editors when available. I think if there was something really important, we would have heard about it by now. Whatamidoing (WMF) (Talk) 13 01:24 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you post them as you read this? — Clem Rutter (conference) 13:16, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

They are published on the meta page as well as on the quantitative data subpage of the enwiki. I asked permission from Philip and am still waiting for his answer. Okeyes (WMF) (Talk) 14:49 July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Does it just mean that the results associated with A/B testing are complete but not made public? – Bilby (talk) 12:57 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The results are known, but they still need to be recorded. Okeyes (WMF) (Talk) 13:07 July 14, 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I was just told that the will will be considered dabout how VE will be deployed to IP users. – Bilby (conference) 13:11, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

They clarify that the results are known. Quick question: are there any negative results for VE? If yes, will it? Kuerden Adam (talk) 09:29, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Some rewards are now available here: meta:Research:VisualEditor in new editors/saved results. Summary of results:

The problems with VE that prevented newbies from using it to make expert edits seem to have had a significant impact on clutter and parsing. Newcomers to VE allowed for less work to be done on the wiki and paid less for total editing time. Also, at some point, users and the wiki’s text editor were less likely to defend changes.

If I go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing I can’t find the entire “Enable Visual Editor” setting. Every time I edit an article, I still have to go back to the old editor. विशॠवा ¤¸à¥‹ व¤¾à¤¸à¥ केयः (talk) 04:38, 19. July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an old computer? Does JavaScript work? The VisualEditor requires JavaScript and may not work in some, usually very old, web browsers. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:03 July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Is It Possible To Make An Edit Source Permanently Visible To Have Sections?

I usually want to change the source code. I’m an engineer and it’s easy for me to work with what’s in the source wiki.

This slows things down when you have to wait for the link to the edit source to appear.

If you just click edit, the “edit source” will never show up and the person will have to go back and turn it back on to see it again.

I understand that most users don’t want the Edit Source button to always be visible. But could that be an option when it comes to the Settings tab? That is, set the timeout before it would be an abbreviation for null.

If it’s still visible, you can make it visible a few times. z after clicking (I can paraphrase if this second call is difficult to programmatically, barely mentioning that it is ultimately simple).

Thank you. I can’t comment on the visual editor as I’ve used the edit source so far, but unfortunately I’m glad you’re making this powerful tool available to users who need this key facts feature and I might be able to find it. useful one day too. Robert Walker (talk) 10 5:31 pm, July 2013 (UTC)

Adding the following to your exclusive CSS page will disable this animation.
This has the side effect that the primary bounding brackets, i.e. [ ], look completely longer on pages edited by the editor, but I personally find that removing bad animation is an acceptable detriment. Hang Gliding (colloquial) 18:15, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Drachenflug, fixed, great help!
After my post linked here, I realized that I misunderstood how this works. I thought it was a block of time. Actuallyit appears when someone immediately hovers over a link to restore a workbook or section.
So it can be used after you get used to it. However, this meant that instead of just clicking on a link, you move most of the mouse first to hover over the concept, and then click in a big zigzag motion. It’s much easier for source code lovers to have code visible all the time :). [] suits me perfectly :). – Previous unsigned comment, continued by Robertinventor (talk – contribution) 18:33, 10 July 2013 –
And thank you! Well, what is the best way to completely get rid of the graphic editor? MDR — Jodon | Talk 10 18:48 July 2013 (UTC)


The easiest way to bypass the VisualEditor is to simply click the [Edit Source] link whenever you want to edit a page.
There is probably also a way to hide the visual editor button from itself in Special:Settings in Gadgets. There is no longer a way to "actually get rid of the files yougiven by him", but since the initial pair of VEs is tiny (~2% of the page, maybe less now that the universal language selector is enabled), this is unlikely to be special. a question for a typical publisher. Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:58 (conference) July 10, 2013 (UTC)

It's nice to see that everything has already been covered. However, their seemingly tricky thing is developing[edit | edit source] is considered unnecessarily complicated and not a good idea. Why not just take advantage of this and post an ad as [edit | change source], for everyone, whether they have defined something in their styles? The animation really needs to be removed. I suspect it depends directly on javascript, which can be annoying for people who have javascript disabled, besides being just confusing. It is becoming more and more obvious what will happen if the default timeout is three. And then there will be touchscreen users. Template:Citation Need Span The VFD contained several bulletins that mentioned that using regular templates and specifying written text without a source with text whenThe view was a terrible idea because touchscreen users won't see this text in the view. When touchscreen users cannot observe mouse movement[edit | source] revision bit, it should always be specified for the same reason that the required Template:Citation range was not considered deleted. Katfolant (conference) 22:21, July 12, 2013 (UTC)