Difference between revisions of "User talk:Voidious/RoboWiki To-Do"
(→Bot Uploads: reply) |
(Throwing out ideas) |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
Personally what I like about the concept of wiki-based upload, or at least using MediaWiki authentication, is that it requires the same authentication to upload the bot, as it takes to add it to the participants list. --[[User:Rednaxela|Rednaxela]] 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | Personally what I like about the concept of wiki-based upload, or at least using MediaWiki authentication, is that it requires the same authentication to upload the bot, as it takes to add it to the participants list. --[[User:Rednaxela|Rednaxela]] 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | : I think we should use RoboWiki authentication, but not standard wiki upload. Why not create a separate system, at http://robowiki.net/bots or something like that. We could have it so that you register your top-level package with your wiki username, and then you can upload bot JARs that follow the standard naming format. If we wanted to get really fancy, we could have special case package names (e.g. everyone can upload in the wiki.* package). « [[User:AaronR|AaronR]] « [[User talk:AaronR|Talk]] « 20:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:43, 18 August 2009
Please say when you noticed it. I feel like I'm talking to nothing.
- Consider user Javascript / CSS
- There is no security issue. Wikipedia has it. If you are worry about XSS, then I must say it is not possible to modified another user's css/js.
- Twitter feedback / changes
- Better under toolbox. If you are not adding follow link, you should have at least link to http://twitter.com/robowiki
- SVG support
- I don't think it cost CPU much.
» Nat | Talk » 14:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Say when I noticed it??
Javascript can still do some very bad / annoying things. And browsers have security vulnerabilities with Javascript sometimes (FireFox recently had one). We've had some horrible wikispam attacks since I've been here (on the old wiki), so I am very cautious on stuff like this. What benefit is there to offset the risk? Is this something other people want? If Wikipedia allows it, that does sway my decision, though.
--Voidious 15:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I have suggested a few of them for several time already and I got really no response =)
As I say, you can't edit other users' javascript/css, nor they can edit yours. The user css/js only activated only when that user visit the site and login. I can't see any vulnerabilities. I don't know if other people want, but I really want it. » Nat | Talk » 02:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I completely misunderstood what this feature was. I thought it was to allow users to post more HTML and Javascript in the content of wiki pages! You're right, that's no security issue at all. --Voidious 23:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Redirect from old URL... I need to change my hosts file back =) Nice!
One thing I want to suggest: wikipedia:User:Cacycle/wikEd It is very nice wiki editor. But if you guys think simple is better. I don't know, I love it just because of syntax highlighting, I never use the tools come with it. » Nat | Talk » 11:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Math formulas via LaTeX now working: <math>x=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}</math> . Cool! --Voidious 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Poll
I see we have a lot of polls lately. I wonder if it will be easier if we have this extension installed? I don't think we will have more polls in short time, but when I finally have time to work with my challenge, at least 3 more polls will be open. » Nat | Talk » 13:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed that too... I'll check out the extension. Thanks! --Voidious 14:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hm, interesting... though I'd be interested in a poll system if it supported a Condorcet method, which would handle cases of people not just preferring one candidate over all others... Actually, here's one mediawiki plugin, though it appears relatively unmaintained --Rednaxela 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Bot Uploads
I just looked at the "Upload File" area that's used for uploading pictures... and just wondered... is there any reason we can't allow bots to be uploaded? Or would that create too much risk of stressing the server? --Rednaxela 00:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be too much stress. After all, David originally intended to also use this server for his RoboRumble server / bot repository. But I'll run it by him first, anyway, and then see about setting that up. --Voidious 00:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I enabled uploading of .jar files (still limited to 2 megs), but unfortunately, silly MediaWiki won't let the first letter of the filenames remain lower case. =( --Voidious 03:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm... well there is $wgCapitalLinks... but I'm not sure if that's a good idea to turn on just for that. --Rednaxela 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, nice find. Setting up redirects for the broken links actually wouldn't be too hard, since they'd shoot to the top of Special:Wantedpages. But if I can figure out another file upload solution that feels secure, that would probably be preferable. I've actually been looking into writing MediaWiki extensions, so maybe I can come up with something... --Voidious 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
On this issue, while I must agree that we have Robocode Repository, it was so sllllllooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. I think we might just hack create a simple file upload solution and use MediaWiki authentication checking. » Nat | Talk » 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally what I like about the concept of wiki-based upload, or at least using MediaWiki authentication, is that it requires the same authentication to upload the bot, as it takes to add it to the participants list. --Rednaxela 16:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think we should use RoboWiki authentication, but not standard wiki upload. Why not create a separate system, at http://robowiki.net/bots or something like that. We could have it so that you register your top-level package with your wiki username, and then you can upload bot JARs that follow the standard naming format. If we wanted to get really fancy, we could have special case package names (e.g. everyone can upload in the wiki.* package). « AaronR « Talk « 20:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)