Help talk:Paragraph-based Edit Conflict Interface/2019

Feedback and discussion page for the Two Column Edit Conflict View.

Update: We completely revised the interface for this feature based on user feedback and user test.

Report a new bug in Phabricator

Who brings this stuff on my page when I do not want it? And it does not work, it sucks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Suddenly this beta feature pops up. Did i choose it? Cannot remember! So why do i get it?

And it does not work! My changes disappear, the whole paragraph. Kipala (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Plus it has corrupted the page. The last entreis have disappeared and I cannot get them back! see https://sw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majadiliano_ya_mtumiaji:Riccardo_Riccioni Kipala (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

After the appearance of that Beta window text the paragraphs on the page after January 2017 are invisible. I think my changes are there, because history shows it and the edit view shows it, too. Somebody please fix it fast ~ Kipala (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The page sw:User talk:Riccardo Riccioni was destroyed in January 2017 by these two edits. This was never reverted. There was an unclosed <ref> tag on the page since then. This is an error in the wikitext, but was ignored by the parser. This changed yesterday when this edit added some wikitext that hapend to contain something that appeared to be a closing </ref>. Since then, the parser tried to parse the entire content between the previously unclosed <ref> and the only </ref> it could find as a reference, but failed to do so.

I fixed the page.

This had nothing to do with the TwoColumnConflict Beta feature. Actually, I'm curious how you could have ended in an edit conflict in this particular situation? The page history does not look like another user was trying to edit the same time. Are you sure it was this page where you have seen the TwoColumnConflict interface? Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 09:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi there,

just by coincidence I had an edit conflict last week and used the updated "two column edit conflict view" – as I was positively surprised. I really like the view, the possibility to switch between wiki text view and wysiwyg/visual view and – especially – the possibility to edit directly in this view.

Thanks a lot for your work! Jcornelius (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can't edit any text after conflict is detected

Great mod! Only I just tried editing my changes after a conflict was detected, clicking on the pencil and... nothing happened. I tried all pencils, to no avail.

I'm working on the French Wiki, using Firefox (up to date) on Win 8.1. Vega (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vega Thanks for letting us know. We'll look into it.

Best,

Johanna Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Vega,

unfortunately I can't reproduce the issue. It would be great if you could try to get another edit conflict to see, if the problem is at least reproducible for your setup.

There are two ways to do that ( that each could have another result, so it would be great if you could try both in the case you can't see the problem in one of the two ):

1st:

Visit the edit conflict simulation page and click through the interface until you get to the edit conflict screen. ( you do not really have to add something anywhere, just go by the defaults )

2nd:

To provoke a "real" edit conflict you can just do the following:

- go to a page ( e.g. a subpage of your user page with some content )

- open it in edit mode and make a change ( but don't save it yet! )

- open the same page in edit mode but with another browser( or a private tab )

- make a ( different ) change in the same line as above and save it

- go back to the first edit and save it

Now you should also see an edit conflict screen.

If you still get the bug it would be also good to know which gadgets you use and if you have any ( other ) custom user scripts enabled.

Thanks again for your report,

best,

Christoph Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Christoph Jauera,

Thanks for looking into this.

1st method is ok, I was able to edit and publish;

2nd method is weird: I used a private tab as per your recommendations, logged in, and the edit conflict was ignored altogether! The changes I made in the 2nd window were discarded with no warning.

I do have different gadgets enabled. I'll see what happens when edit conflicts appear with other contributors before I take more of your time with this case.

Thanks for your useful work,

Vega Vega (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for trying this.

To the 2nd method: Don't log-in on the 2nd window. It's essential that this edit comes from a "different" user ( normally you can edit as anonymous user on an arbitrary page in your user space ). There won't be a conflict if both edits come from the same user ( since MediaWiki will assume you're aware of the overwriting actions ).

And no worries. Better report a potential bug that does not turn out to be one than not reporting a critical issue :-). Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Ok, so this time I didn't log in, and correctly managed to edit within the edict conflict page. Still don't know why it didn't work the first time.

I thought MediaWiki would warn me that I am already editing the same page, but it seems they trust I don't make mistakes ^^ Anyway, thanks for your kind support. Vega (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

How do I review after solving the conflict?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Great update, and completely impressed with the new experience; pretty time saving to solve conflict. By the way, the "Review changes" button does not seem to work, after I have chosen which edit version either on the left or on the rightside column. Is it final when I check either box, I mean, do I have to correct other things before solving ediitng conflict as in this edit? Anyway, thank you so much for your hard work, guys :) Omotecho (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Omotecho Thanks a lot for this feedback! It seems in fact that something is broken with the "Review changes" button. I've filed a bug report for T216742

Thanks again!

Johanna Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Omotecho It turns out I was wrong. For some reason, I confused the "Review changes" with the "Preview" button yesterday. Sorry about that!

So, the correct information is: The "Review changes" button doesn't work because it doesn't exist in the new interface anymore. That's because technically speaking the two-column layout is basically an editable diff view. As in the diff view, you see all of the changes between the two versions in yellow and blue, and all of the unchanged text in grey. To compose the version you want to publish, you select the text passages you want to keep, and click on "Publish". That's it. Optionally, you can edit the text in the selected text boxes, and also in the grey text boxes.

I hope this helps.

Best,

Johanna Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Johanna Strodt to taking care of my question, and I am excited to update my skill using two-column preview:

• I find it very useful as when I choose the rightside box, then the diff is highlighted inside the text box (in my case in blue for the r-column) so that I am assured my choice is correct.
• The new thing in my guess, before on-hand experiment myself: I will click on the right column in two-column display during checking edit conflict, and I will edit in that display; I used to go back to editing mode prior to the current update. (If my guess is right, then it's worth to announce to the users using Tech News, isn't it?) Omotecho (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Omotecho Yes, in this new interface, you can edit directly in the two-column display without going to back to a separate editing page. Right now, the feature is in beta phase. We've announced it quite a bit already, including Tech News, and we'll announce it again once it becomes a default feature for everyone.

Have a good week!

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Case solved for me. Wonderful! Can’t wait to translate messages on this topic on future Tech News issues, appreciating your hard work and very inventive solution for maximising human and time resource for editors  :) Enjoy good meal. Omotecho (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll pass this on to the rest of the team. :) Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I lost my 20min edit. Thanks

Just now I lost an edit that took me 20 minutes to craft. Thanks. I really thought I was publishing *my* edit (overwriting the other ec edit, with good reason), but in the end my own text was gone. Doesn't the Preview button function as intended? WHY does a feature like this still SURPRISE and DISAPPOINT me?

I have tried to get into this feature (seriously, for is it 18 months?), but from now I will deny and kill it with every option I have. I am a serious editor, this nonsense spoiled my wikiweek.

I mean: these days, every browser has a warning that says: "You really want to throw away your edits?". DePiep (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello @DePiep, I'm sorry to hear that you've lost your edit. Have you experienced this before with the new interface?

We've looked into the problem that you're describing, but couldn't reproduce it. So to understand what this is about, could you tell us which editor you used, and give us a link to the edit this was concerning? Also, it would be helpful to get a list of the gadgets you have enabled.

For the warning idea, I've created a ticket: T216813

Thanks a lot,

Johanna

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this action. I have not experienced this before in the 2-column version, but I must say I never tried this before: to overwrite (overrule) the other edit (the conflicting one). IIRC, when the 2-column ec screen appeared, I choose to have my own edit in the righthand column, and saw my text in there so OK. I clicked Preview button, but it had no effect (no reaction). Then I pressed "Publish" button (=Save) in the blind (unchecked unpreviewed). Moments later I saw that the wrong edit was saved, and I could not walk back to my editing page (where my edited text might still be). I did not open or follow the manual linked. All as I recall. (Usually, I copy/paste my edited text into an extra opened page to merge the edits, i.e., manually).

I was editing Firefox, in old Wikitext not VE.

The edit that won is: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brexit&diff=884465789&oldid=884462294&diffmode=source]

Beta gadgets: Visual Differences, Two column edit conflict

Gadgets active:

(I will add the list from Preferences later. You need all ~20?) DePiep (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @DePiep. We'll look into this more beginning of next week. For now, I've filed a ticket for the Preview button that doesn't react: T216837 I could reproduce this myself.

Have a good weekend!

Johanna Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Quite probably I was sloppy checking, it might *not* be a Preview failure (as I tried to describe above). My frustration was: the interaction failing. As I noted before on this ec feature: losing one's edited text is horrifying. Preventing that should be prio #1. (also, I wrote: obvious non-conflicts should be handled more smartly).

Actually, and to be honest: ever since this ec new thing 18 months ago (a "3-colum" version before?), I did this: EC situation -> open new tab with same talkpage -> copy/paste my new text -> save. DePiep (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep Thanks for the update. I understand your main concern is that it's not clear when you're about to lose your text, which you can't get back. I'll take your remarks back to our team.

Best,

Johanna Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Failure with the new version

I've successfully used the previous version of the edit conflict tool quite a few times, however the new version completely failed.

First, it took me uncomfortably long to find and grab a copy of the text I was trying to add. Perhaps it's just because I was seeing the new version for the first time, but it was an unpleasant start.

Next, I was severely puzzled that there was no live edit-box anywhere. I after a bit of effort I did manage to activate the old-text as an edit area and add my own text. I am going to be cautious in commenting because it's my first time seeing the new version, but I have a vague but strong feeling that that this design is very wrong somehow. It's hard to give more specific feedback because the system-as-a-whole failed completely.

After modifying the old-text-area to include my new comment, my natural next steps would be (1) preview and (2) a diff-check, prior to saving. Except the preview button didn't work! Repeated clicks on Preview did nothing. I was unable to get to diff either.

Unable to progress, I went back and tried to review and absorb the conflict-system as a whole, and see if maybe I was missing something. I can pretty much see what you were aiming for, but when I tried the system for expanding/collapsing sections(?) it was either broken or not doing what I expected. I couldn't find any way to get the preview button to work. Somehow the whole design around activating the edit areas felt very wrong.

I was never able to resolve the edit conflict. If I can't go back to the previous version of the tool, I'll have to shut off the Beta-preferences and go back to the "native" conflict resolution system.

This may be a strange comment, but I get this weird feeling that new design went wrong because someone from the VisualEditor or Flow team showed up to take charge. Alsee (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that Phab T216837 exists to address the non-working preview button. My other impressions of the system should still be reviewed, under the caveat that it's difficult to evaluate the design when it's impossible to complete the process. Alsee (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Same issue in previewing and diff-check. Tigerzeng (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input (it is very much appreciated and needed) and sorry for the delayed answer. The problem with the broken preview and diff buttons it known and will be fixed.

About the general experience with the new version: We tested both versions with various users of different backgrounds. And while all solutions have there pros and cons and did confuse some users, the new version was understood better by most people and resulted in more conflicts being successfully resolved. We therefore decided for the new version and try to improve it further to be more easily understood and better to use. Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Where’s my wikitext?!

So I added a lot of stuff to a cat in Commons and meanwhile someone else changed a few cats. When the edit conflict page generated by this gadget come over, there were some highlighted changes and I could either “publish” or cancel. Where’s my wikitext, though in case I wanna keep it for later? Tuvalkin (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There’s a link that says «Go to editing area», but it’s not really editing (wikitext) it’s a VE-style gizmo that ate half of what I had typed. Is this your way to create productivity tools? Well, keep it, I’m gonna turn off this thing in my prefs and let you dupe someone else to be your lab rats. Tuvalkin (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh and the warning message is precious, showing an unresolved template call: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:6}}|[[File:{{PAGENAME}}|350x220px|none]]}}. Classy! Tuvalkin (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Tuvalkin, sorry to hear that you ran into problems with an edit conflict.

From your description I cannot entirely see if this is an issue with the Two Column Edit Conflict View beta feature or if this was a problem you ran into while using the classic conflict screen though. If your conflict looked something like this it is the former. If it looked more like that its the latter.

Can you please confirm the one or the other?

Thanks, Christoph Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Neither: What I was handed had no textbox nor any other way I could have retrieved the wikitext in question, either in toto or only the affected snippet. (Also: The way you linked those two images, with (…)«#/media/File:», within a remote page, instead of simple (…)«File:» is outright evil.) (Also 2: This Flow contraption has no preview? Wtf?) Tuvalkin (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds indeed very strange then. - If it was neither the one nor the other, than I really have a hard time understanding what happened there. :-/

Do you have the two column edit conflict feature enabled in the beta features section? Could you try to "provoke" a new edit conflict and provide a screenshot of what you're seeing?

To provoke an edit conflict you can just do the following:

- go to a page ( e.g. a subpage of your user page with some content )

- open it in edit mode and make a change ( but don't save it yet! )

- open the same page in edit mode but with another browser ( or a private tab )

- make a ( different ) change in the same line as above and save it

- go back to the first edit and save it

Thanks!

Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the matter. I did turn this gadget off, but I can turn it back on for experiment sake. I will do as you suggest ASAP. Tuvalkin (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

And of course no preview means I could not correct my botched closing tags will be corrected never ever. You guys managed to destroy a wiki’s most basic function with your airhead gadgets. Tuvalkin (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC) (Later:) Oh, it is editable! Fantastic: it's not a button that says edit or that shows a pencil, it's a button that shows both but which is in turn hidden inside another button that shows three dots; all buttons frameless of course, to make it easier. Well, easy it aint. Tuvalkin (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Add, not delete text

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Scenario: user or article TP discussion - click on save comment...edit conflict window appears...choose my text to add, thinking it will be added either above or below the conflicted text. Instead, it deletes the conflicted text and adds mine in its place. Why isn’t it simply added above or below the conflicted text instead of deleting one or the other? The tool doesn’t resolve the conflict, it creates one. ~ Atsme (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the input. The conflict resolution algorithms can't (yet) detect when two answers have been added independently, since it's working paragraph-wise not linewise. Therefore the conflict resolution pages is shown. The current work-flow would be to merge the two versions by selecting one and copying the other additions to it. There is already a ticket for improving this T213270 – I added a link to your input. Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Preview doesn’t work

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After I’ve copied my post to the “current” (left-hand) side and clicked the checkmark, the Preview button does nothing (using Safari v.12.0.3 on a Macintosh, at enWP & Commons). Sometimes I just cross my fingers and Publish, but if I need to verify that a template or link works as expected, I have to back out and start over, defeating the purpose of the conflict-resolver. Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the bug-report! I gave it to the developers, so that we can look into it. Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

有没有办法恢复到以前版本的工具？这

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

有没有办法恢复到以前版本的工具？这 180.102.245.218 (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe the question is if it's possible to use an older version of the tool. Unfortunately I'm not sure what "older version" you are referring to? As of now you can turn the "Two column edit conflict" feature off in your Beta preferences. This brings back the original conflict resolution interface as it always was. There was also an earlier prototype we tested. This one did not performed well and is gone. Sorry. Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 16:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Selecting both

I found that this option never worked for me. The only time I encountered conflicts was when writing something in a discussion page and have someone write something before I post my own.

In that case I would like to have the current version and add my own. But the interface seems to force me to choose between one of them.

What I normally do is go back, copy my text additions, and re-edit the page. The conflicts page merely gets in my way, as in the original interface I could have at least (in most cases) copied and edited the text within it.

Am I missing something? Tzafrir (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Tzafrir, thanks for your feedback!

If you want to keep both versions with the new interface, what I suggest you to do is: Copy e.g. your version, and then select the other person's version. You find a small edit pen in the corner of the other person's text field (e.g. see the sceenshots here). If you click that, you can paste your version underneath. When you save, this new version will be published.

Just in case you are wondering, why we did notdesign the feature with specifically this use case in mind: Although many experienced editors encounter edit conflicts the same way as you, about half of edit conflicts actually appear in the main namespace, e.g. on article pages., and all other namespaces make up at most 1/4 of the main namespace conflict volume. Lea Voget (WMDE) (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tzafrir. All the edit conflicts I'm encountering are no conflicts at all, it's annoying not having the option to simply append your own comment to the already existing comment, every time I have to skip the edit conflict page to paste it in manually. This feature doesn't help me at all. Lucasbosch (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 on this report. The tool should be smart enough to do the right thing, or at least offer a single-clik "accept both changes and edit further" when writing in a threaded discussion on a talk page. I've been slowed down many times by this. JFG (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I have also encountered this issue on talk pages. Would it be possible to have some kind of "keep both" (enhancement request to choose the order) when the conflict is on a talk or Wikipedia page, and the conflicting edits consist only of the addition of full paragraphs which happen to be in the same place? ScottDavis (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This feature does not help me at all. Copy and paste my own text, and the insert it into the most recent version, that is something I can to without the feature anyway. What is the problem the feature is supposed to help me with? Ziko (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit conflict view without an edit conflict

Thanks for creating a ticket. I close this thread, our engineers will look into the ticket.

Several times I was put in the edit confilct view while there could be no conflict f.e. last edit by myself an hour ago. Geraki (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can you give us links to edits where this happened? Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I reported it in phab:T225656 Geraki (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This appears to have just happened to me. Merge tool triggered, indicating there was an edit just now that conflicted with my current edit, however, the tool pulled a January 26 edit in the left column, with the right column indicating the only differences are my new edits, and no indication of other more recent changes.

Jan 26 edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nacho_Vigalondo&oldid=879581841

My edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nacho_Vigalondo&oldid=902987739

I was not logged in when I did my initial edit, before publish, I logged in (which is typical, since I sometimes forget to login until after I've already typed up my edit). I did not use the preview button.

The Merge tool triggered after pressing publish. I then opened a new window to type up this report. I opened the original page to grab some edit-stamp links and the history indicates that my new changes have already been committed. I never deployed my publish from the Merge tool page.

edit: that was weird. mediawiki created an IP-address home-page for me while I was logged in on mediawiki. I already had a userpage but it didn't seem to see it. 73.243.38.88 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any update about this? I'm getting this fairly often while making only category edits with HotCat. Not every time, but a good percentage. Broccoli and Coffee (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, can you please give us more information about this issue in the Phabrikator-ticket: phab:T225656. Links to examples or anything else, that might help us to pinpoint to when this error occurs? Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Good surprise

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just got this for the first time and was happy to see a new merge tool. It took me a long time to notice the blue tutorial dots, and at first I thought it was something on my screen before I realized I was supposed to click on it. Overall it looks great, and resolving the conflict was pretty intuitive. Thanks for all the work on this. Wugapodes (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need an "accept all my changes" button

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just made complex edits that took a very long time to prepare, and therefore I applied the changes in one section of the article,[1] then in another.[2] Between my edits to the first section and my edits to the second one, a bot had restored some citations,[3] which I had planned to take care of in my second edit. Unfortunately, I had to manually check every single box to override bot changes, about 60 of them. This tool absolutely needs a checkbox at the top that allows an editor to apply all changes in the right-hand version. Trust editors not to abuse this.

This is not an isolated incident, it happens to me often, including when reverting vandalism. This time was very time-consuming though, so I took the trouble to file a report here. Hope this helps. JFG (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I created a Ticket for it, so that our team can take a look at it. Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

False conflict

Known bug: Phab:T222805

I mostly seem to get conflicts with old edits, or with myself (expansion of sig,perhaps).

Rich Farmbrough 10:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. This bug is known and we are currently investigating it's origin, follow T222805 for updates. Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Preview error

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The preview was faulty. My ~~~~ wasn't expanded as a signature. I'm just speculating, but I suspect this probably indicates an issue with all pre-save-transforms. Alsee (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for reporting this. I can confirm the issue and created phab:T233952 to keep track of it. Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 13:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add a "copy text" button?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've started using this. I'm generally finding it much nicer than the previous way. It would be even more convenient if each of the side-by-side text boxes had a "copy this text to the clipboard" button. It would save having to manually select the text, then copy it. ~ RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.