Help talk:Paragraph-based Edit Conflict Interface/2018

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

Wrong font

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.

---

Hello. I use your tool a lot of time and like it very much, but this time something is wrong. The right column has font size of about 1000%. Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @IKhitron,

thanks for your report, I could easily reproduce it with the conflict simulation and filed a ticket: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T186518

best,

Christoph Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It's much bigger for me, but seems it depends on browser. IKhitron (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Wrong Font

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.

---

font is not

right Mosa Daniel Mooki Bw (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Mosa Daniel Mooki Bw, thanks for the feedback! The too big font should be fixed by tomorrow.

Best,

Lea Lea Voget (WMDE) (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mosa Daniel Mooki Bw to be more precises here:

The issue was tracked here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T186518 and fixed in here: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/409902/. Since this is merged already we just have to wait for the default deployment process, that should be finished by the end of today.

I hope that answers your question :-) Christoph Jauera (WMDE) (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Created a mess on talk page

This was the first time I used this tool, so I was careful to go through the little “tutorial”. I selected my changes on the left, and I *thought* I had pasted it over my comment on the right, but it ended up getting posted twice. But the edit-conflict directions themselves got pasted onto the talk page! It took about 3 more edits for me to completely clean it up. Gorthian (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that! We are currently working on a completely new version of the extension. This will hopefully avoid such problems in the future. Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely gorgeous

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 really like the new tool! Excellent work; light-years ahead of the earlier UX while resolving an edit conflict. Enterprisey (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice feedback. Sadly other user also had quite some problems with this approach, therefore we are currently starting from scratch developing a new, hopefully even better approach.

You can find a video demonstating it here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Walkthrough_of_the_paragraph-based_prototype_for_the_Column_Edit_Conflict_extension.webm

I hope you are satisfied by this too. Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Resource consumption on Mobile browser

I was adding a new comment on a Chinese Wikipedia community portal subpage (a rather long page) but I double clicked the submit button so I entered edit conflict with myself (due to the signature). That's not a problem in itself, however my Chrome for Android freezed for almost half minute with multiple "Chrome not responding do you want tp force close" window poped up. Even when it stopped freezing, the page performance was still insufficient to actually conduct any operation. Please improve the tool's performance on mobile phone browsers. C933103 (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

We are currently writing on a completely new version of this tool. We will have a look at the mobile performance with this. Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow that happen??

I am glad I read this before trying the new feature PandaDanni (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Getting it on every talk page

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'm getting the edit conflict viewer on every talk page I post on. Just got an edit conflict viewer on wikipedia:Template talk:Edit fully-protected, even though the last edit to the page was three days before mine. And then somehow it both posted my edit and did a null edit afterwards, even though I only clicked "Submit" once. Not sure what's going on here. Cymru.lass (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, that seems like a important bug! but we will replace the current version of the extension with a totally new version anyway this week (depending on the wiki and your timezone it will go live between Tuesday and Friday).

Should this bug still occur with the new version, please write us or ping me, then I will hand this to the developers! Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Cool beans! Thanks for the quick reply. :) Cymru.lass (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried to reproduce the issue but wasn't successful. @Cymru.lass, can you try to explain how exactly you did the edit in your example? I mean, do you use the "Add topic" feature on top of the page? Do you use VisualEditor? Do you click "edit source" on the last paragraph and add your own wikitext? Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 10:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I use edit source, not VE. The error is happening on Wikipedia, so no threaded conversations there. I'm trying to remember if it was when I was editing a section or full talk page but I'm coming up blank. Cymru.lass (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Unfortunately this was my test setup, and I couldn't reproduce it. Can you share a few more details about your setup, e.g. your browser, possible browser plugins (e.g. NoScript), Gadgets enabled in your Wikipedia settings, user scripts you are using? Can you try to delete all cookies that contain the wikipedia.org domain, login again, and tell us if the error still happens? Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 15:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, using Wiki Editor 2010, I have probably same issue while editing Commons. I doesn't occur while editing other wikis. Regards. Draceane (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Since 1.33.0-wmf.3, I am getting a conflict on every single page, even those in which I submitted the latest change. WikiEditor 2010. Peter Bowman (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I just had the edit conflict show up when I clicked "edit" on a section in the entry for "luna" on English Wiktionary. I think I'll disable the gadget. I'm using Firefox Quantum 64 if that helps. I always use the wikitext editor (not Visual Editor) and have lots of user scripts and gadgets enabled. — Eru·tuon 00:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This very broken edit conflict view started appearing for me today. I edited earlier this afternoon (I always use the wikitext editor), and no edit conflict -- I got the normal desired behavior. I log in this evening (US eastern time), and now I get this broken gadget interfering.

Basic symptoms:

• Make sure you're logged in.
• Edit any page or section of a page using the wikitext editor.
• Click the Show preview button.
• Observe that the gadget claims an edit conflict with the last edit, even if that was days ago.
• Observe also that the gadget seems to claim that edits to subsections will replace the content of the entire page, not just the intended subsection.

Does not happen if not logged in.

Happens in both Chrome and Firefox.

Highly undesirable behavior -- I saw no notification that this was going to be suddenly enabled, no explanation of what it was, and I see no clear way of disabling it. Not only is the unexplained and substantial change in UI both confusing and unwanted, but the basic edit conflict feature itself appears to be fundamentally broken. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: I'm getting it on every Wiktionary page -- mainspace, Talk, Wiktionary, Category, everything I've tried so far. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to report that the new one is not working and thinks I want to overwrite Wikidata's project chat. Jc86035 (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for reporting the issue! We are disabling the feature until we found the bug, this really does not sound good. If you are NOT a beta feature user of TwoColConflict, and still had these issues, please let us know! Lea Voget (WMDE) (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

We believe we fixed the bug yesterday and cannot reproduce the issue anymore. Can you please tell us if this is still happening to anyone of you? If not, I will mark this as resolved. Thanks again for reporting in the first place! 93.243.194.191 (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(and I forgot to log in - this was me, Lea) Lea Voget (WMDE) (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It does not happen anymore to me (wiktionary projects), thanks! Peter Bowman (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I re-enabled the feature and so far it seems to be behaving. Whew! — Eru·tuon 00:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Not letting me publish edits

I had finished a table on an article, but edit conflict won't let me publish, even after a couple of minutes. Why? ~ HorsesAreNice (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @HorsesAreNice,

thanks for the report! Can you help us understanding the situation a little bit better? We need to know:

- What did you do? (Do you still have the option of making a screenshot of the situation? Which versions did you select? Did you click on "preview changes" or "show changes"?)

- What did you expect to happen? (Do I understand it correctly that you clicked on "Resolve conflict", thinking that the conflict would be resolved and you would be redirected to the reading version of the article, but that did not happen?)

- What happened instead? (Did the page flicker and then appeared again as if it was a new conflict? Did the changes you make stay, or was everything gone? Or did something entirely different happen?)

Thank you very much in advance!

Lea Lea Voget (WMDE) (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tool

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.

---

Hello, I am an editor from Chinese Wikipedia. This awesome tool has really helped me a lot and I like it very much. Thanks for developing it! 胡葡萄 (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Re-editing

Hi there. Firstly, this is a really great new tool that is much improved over the old system. I was wondering if there could be some way to re-enter a standard editing mode after selecting which changes you wanted to keep from each version? So if you end up choosing one of the changes but want to go back and adjust it before saving then you could. Adamstom.97 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

There should be an option to use both

When getting a conflict on a talk page (because another user has added a comment on the same topic), I would like to be able to "use both", mine after the other (or vice versa, not sure we need both options). PaterMcFly (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This would be great. The conflict view mainly triggers in cases like this for me. For example, two "!votes" on a page should be added sequentially if they both start with a single #. Or if two people respond to the same talk page comment, both at the ::: level, can set the first registered comment to ::: and the second to ::* to keep at the same level but differentiate the second comment. (Not watching page but ping me as needed) czar 12:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no option to merge conflicting edits, is there? It would be really helpful to add this feature... Draceane (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for you inputs and the proposals! I create a phabricator-task for this: T213270, so we have it on our radar and can take a look. Can you also take a look at the ticket if this describes your issue well?

@Draceane: have you noticed that you can edit every section to merge in your edits? Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Michael Schönitzer (WMDE): Thanks for creating the ticket. Meanwhile I did find the workaround with edit-and-copy, but as stated by you, this is unintuitive and ugly. PaterMcFly (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I would be very happy if this came to fruit. 9 out of 9 times the editing conflicts I have are on talk pages. For now the copy-paste workaround works. Frank Geerlings (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit is lost by viewing changes

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.

---

If you make an edit with this interface, click on "Show changes" to check if edit is good and press "Publish", your edit will disappear.

That happens because after clicking on "Show changes", edit is removed and "Publish" click saves nothing. Vort (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, and thanks for letting us know! Feekback like this is very relevant in the projects current phase. I tried to reproduce the situation exactly as described:

• In the conflict resolution interface I picked my side (the blue right side) and made an edit. Confirming the edit with the checkmark button is optional.
• I clicked "Show changes". My edit appears in the diff, and the conflict resolution interface below.
• I clicked the publish button. My edit appears in the final page.

I'm afraid we need more information to understand what exactly happened in the situation you run into. Do you remember if you did something different than described above? Did it happened again? Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 13:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE), I didn't knew about check mark. It is not mentioned in section "How to solve an edit conflict".

The differences is that I've picked and edited other side.

Here is the screenshots: before, after.

At the second screenshot you can see that left edit field is reverted to its original state. Vort (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the detailed response! What I can reproduce now is slightly different, but there is definitely something off that needs fixing. I created phab:T210501 to keep track of this issue. Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 14:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Publish in different sections?

Hello, it is possible that I did not really understand the tool, but it does not help me much. I had a conflict and did not want to choose between my and the other edits. Both were fine. I wanted to have both published, and as the edits happened in two different sections of the page, I think that should be possible. But well, I had to do what I always did: copy my source text, reopen the page and paste my source text. No advantage over the old system. Ziko (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Feedback like this is very welcome. Can you please let us know which exact page on which wiki you edited when you run into this situation? Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 13:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:Project/Scribe:_Supporting_Under-resourced_Wikipedia_Editors_in_Creating_New_Articles&diff=prev&oldid=18653789 Ziko (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the issue. The edit appears to be pretty massive, basically touching the entire page. As far as I can see it was not made by editing a section, but by editing the whole page. These appear to be the two other edits that have been made in the meantime. (Update: I tried to reproduce this locally, and these edits don't lead to a conflict.) If it's true that your edit also contained these sections, but in an older version, an edit conflict is to be expected then. The idea of the new edit conflict interface is to be able to select both the two new versions these other edits created, as well as your new version.

I think the issue might be that consecutive paragraphs are merged into bigger chunks, and the interface did not gave you the possibility to have fine-grained control over which paragraph to pick from which side. Could that be? Are you able to provide a screenshot? Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 17:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - wrong link. I meant this one: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Kurier&diff=prev&oldid=183119667&diffmode=source

It was one contribution in one section, while a different section was edited by someone else. Thanks for your time. Ziko (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up! I believe I was able to reproduce the situation you run into. I might miss something, but what I have seen so far is all expected behavior. This is what happened, as far as I understood it:

• Your edit was meant to add a section directly below "Inhalt der rechten Spalte", just as this diff shows.
• At the same time another user moved a section between the two columns, as seen in this diff. This edit touched the same line directly below "Inhalt der rechten Spalte". There must be a conflict because of this.
• In my replay of this situation I got a conflict resolution screen as I would expect it. It showed the moved section being in conflict with the new section.

I understand that neither picking the left side (the new section would get lost), nor the right (this would undo the move) can solve such a conflict. We will keep this in mind and think of ways to deal with such a situation.

What the interface currently allows is this: Make sure the left side with the other users version is selected for all sections. Then copy your new section from the right side and paste it into one of the small text editors on the left side. Don't replace the text in the text editor, but insert your section exactly where you want it to appear. This might not be that convenient, but worked in my replay. Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) 13:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, thank you very much for your explanations! I think I will deal easier now with the problem in future cases!

Ziko (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict tool raises a conflict over signatures on wikipedia:User_talk:SMILESmaster#SMILES that I'm working on

I have included the text on the page:

Edit conflict: User talk:SMILESmaster

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.

Latest revision as of 1 second ago

The Nth User (talk | contribs)

(→‎SMILES that I'm working on: More interesting things about the dichromium SMILES)

Your revision

Not published yet

(→‎SMILES that I'm working on: More interesting things about the dichromium SMILES)

== SMILESmaster, you are invited to the Teahouse! == {| style="margin: 1em 4em;" |- valign="top" | [[File:WP teahouse logo 2.png|alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0]] | <div style="background-color:#f4f3f0; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em;border-radius:10px; font-size: 1.1em;"> Hi '''SMILESmaster'''! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. <br />Be our guest at [[w:WP:teahouse|the Teahouse]]! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like {{noping|Gestrid}} ([[User_talk:Gestrid|talk]]). <div class="submit ui-button ui-widget ui-state-default ui-corner-all ui-button-text-only" role="button" aria-disabled="false" style="float: left;"><span class="ui-button-text">[[WP:Teahouse|Visit the Teahouse]]</span></div> <div style="text-align:right;">We hope to see you there! <small>Delivered by {{noping|HostBot}} on behalf of the [[WP:Teahouse/Hosts|Teahouse hosts]]</small> <small>16:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)</small></div> </div> |} [[Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation]] == Welcome == As no one else seems to have done it yet - Welcome to Wikipedia! It’s good to see a new chemistry editor. I see you’ve set yourself the task of sorting through our SMILES strings, which is certainly something that needs doing. Might I suggest [http://www.cheminfo.org/wikipedia/# this site] (doesn't work in IE) which maintains a list of errors as well as a list of pages without SMILES at all (see the ‘Browse errors’ section). If you’re feeling social, the chemistry editing community maintains an active [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry|Wiki-project page]], where we discuss problems and the like. Do feel welcome to join us (no obligation!). Finally, if you get stuck at all do feel free to drop me a message and I’ll see if I can help. --[[User:Project Osprey|Project Osprey]] ([[User talk:Project Osprey|talk]]) 09:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC) == ArbCom 2018 election voter message == {{Ivmbox|Hello, SMILESmaster. Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2018|2018 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/710|voting page]]'''. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} == SMILES that I'm working on == There are a few SMILES that I've tried but failed to fix that you might be interested in helping me with. I'll link the talk page discussions. *[[Talk:Chromium(II)_acetate#SMILES]] *[[Talk:Gallium_arsenide#SMILES]] *[[Talk:Diamond#SMILES]] (arguably successful but hasn't been put in yet) Can you look at them and see what you can do? Thank you. [[User talk:The_Nth_User|Care to differ or discuss with me?]] [[User:The_Nth_User|The N^th User]] 02:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC) : Thank you {{User|The_Nth_User}} for contacting me. I tried my best to fix the 2 SMILES's. But one needs to keep in mind that the SMILES was created to encode standard organic molecules and is not very good for organometallic structures and even worse for the inorganic ones. There is nothing like coordinate bond in the SMILES syntax. You can try to view the SMILES using the CDK depict service at https://www.simolecule.com/cdkdepict/depict.html ::Actually, I realized that I forgot to put the water ligands in brackets, so the program treated the 2 after H as meaning that the hydrogen atom was in a ring. Once I put brackets in, the SMILES worked much better, but for some reason, [https://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=%5BCr%5D1234(%5BOH2%5D)=%5BCr%5D(%5BOH2%5D)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O1)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O2)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O3)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O4) the symbols for triple and quadruple bonds don't work], even when I use the escape codes. [[User talk:The_Nth_User|Care to differ or discuss with me?]] [[User:The_Nth_User|The N^th User]] 00:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ::Also, other page with a SMILES error is [[dicarbon]], but not even [CH0]=[CH0], which explicitly states that the molecule doesn't have any hydrogen, seems to work. [[User talk:The_Nth_User|Care to differ or discuss with me?]] [[User:The_Nth_User|The N^th User]] 00:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ::: The SMILES [C]=[C] is the correct SMILES for dicarbon, concerning the quadruple bond, this is not part of the standard SMILES (although some software vendors implemented it as an extension, but you cannot rely that it will work universally). Concerning the organometallic structure you are linking to, it looks that the 4 carbons have only 3 bonds, should not they have an additional hydrogen attached? [[User:SMILESmaster|SMILESmaster]] ([[User talk:SMILESmaster#top|talk]]) 09:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ::::For me, [C]=[C] renders as ethene. As for the chromium compound, the carboxylate group as a whole as a negative charge, which I put on the carbon so each oxygen could single-bond with the chromium without being hypervalent. Acetate has three hydrogen atoms, and each acetate group in the model has that number of atoms, so I do not think that it needs to be changed. However, [https://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=%5BCr-%5D1234(%5BO+H2%5D)=%5BCr-%5D(%5BO+H2%5D)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O1)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O2)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O3)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O4) I figured out a way to get the water to display better.] [[User talk:The_Nth_User|Care to differ or discuss with me?]] [[User:The_Nth_User|The N^th User]] 00:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Please select a version

:::::I just noticed something else: For the previous SMILES, if I remove the H2 from the oxygen atom for each of the water molecules (The H2 is unnecessary because the oxygen atom in each water molecule has a formal charge of +1.), [https://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=%5BCr-%5D1234(%5BO+%5D)=%5BCr-%5D(%5BO+%5D)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O1)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O2)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O3)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O4) the oxygen atoms in the acetates align for the two chromium atoms]. [https://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=%5BCr-%5D1234(%5BO+%5D)=%5BCr-%5D(%5BO+%5D)(o%5BC-%5D(C)O1)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O2)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O3)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O4) Making one of the oxygen atoms for the acetate groups lowercase (signifying resonance) reverses this], although [https://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=%5BCr-%5D1234(%5BO+%5D)=%5BCr-%5D(%5BO+%5D)(o%5Bc-%5D(C)o1)(o%5Bc-%5D(C)o2)(o%5Bc-%5D(C)o3)(o%5Bc-%5D(C)o4) doing this for all of the carboxylate groups does not]. [[User talk:The_Nth_User|Care to differ or discuss with me?]] [[User:The_Nth_User|The N^th User]] 03:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC) :::::I just noticed something else: For the previous SMILES, if I remove the H2 from the oxygen atom for each of the water molecules (The H2 is unnecessary because the oxygen atom in each water molecule has a formal charge of +1.), [https://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=%5BCr-%5D1234(%5BO+%5D)=%5BCr-%5D(%5BO+%5D)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O1)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O2)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O3)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O4) the oxygen atoms in the acetates align for the two chromium atoms]. [https://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=%5BCr-%5D1234(%5BO+%5D)=%5BCr-%5D(%5BO+%5D)(o%5BC-%5D(C)O1)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O2)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O3)(O%5BC-%5D(C)O4) Making one of the oxygen atoms for the acetate groups lowercase (signifying resonance) reverses this], although [https://chemapps.stolaf.edu/jmol/jmol.php?model=%5BCr-%5D1234(%5BO+%5D)=%5BCr-%5D(%5BO+%5D)(o%5Bc-%5D(C)o1)(o%5Bc-%5D(C)o2)(o%5Bc-%5D(C)o3)(o%5Bc-%5D(C)o4) doing this for all of the carboxylate groups does not].~~~~   – — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §   Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~   Cite your sources: <ref></ref>

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Navigation menu

• The Nth User
• Alerts (0)
• Notices (0)
• Talk
• Sandbox
• Preferences
• Beta
• Watchlist
• Contributions
• Log out

• User page
• Talk

• Read
• Edit source
• New section
• View history
• WikiLove
• Watch

===More=== The Nth User (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your message. We think that this is not a bug in our beta-feature but a rare bug in the original code of the edit conflict detection. I created a ticket for it: T211187. Could you please read through it and look if I got it right or if any potential important information is missing? Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember whether or not I did it this time, but I know that a similar thing happened once before because I double-clicked the Publish button. Besides that (and I didn't even mention it originally), you got everything. Thank you.~ The Nth User (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Previous version

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.

---

Hello. Is there a way to return to previous version of the tool, a couple of weeks ago? It was wonderful. I can't even understand the current one, but trying to use all the buttons does not help to solve conflicts. If it's impossible, I'll remove it at all. Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to hear that. Maybe you can describe us more what your problems with the new interface are, so that we can try to improve it and it's documentation? Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. No problem. I do not know what to do to resolve the conflict. I see too many buttons. I can't understand what each one is for. I can't find how to edit the current version so I could paste my changes. And so on. IKhitron (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, for our better understanding: did you see/use the help-button? If so, did the help dialogs helped? Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

One, the previous version was extremally intuitive, so I did not need any help. And two, no, I did not. IKhitron (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I second this. The new version is much more difficult to use. Natureium (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I had a conflict again. Found the help link, read the help. Now I know what did you want it to be. And yes, it is much more harder to use. So my question, again, is there a way to return to the previous version on my account, or I'll just turn the tool off? Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There is unfortunately no way to switch to the previous version. Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

)-: IKhitron (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @IKhitron and @Natureium! The interface you'd like to return to is this version here, right?

It would help us if you could describe a bit what this interface did well that you are missing in the new one. If you can spare a few minutes to describe this, this would be much appreciated.

Best,

Johanna Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Well, it is very unconvenient and very unintuitive. I believe it's possible to solve a conflict using the new version, and it's possible to remember how to do it, but it is not worth. The first version was millions better than the regular wikitool, and in the same time the second version is much worse than the regular one. If I can't use the first version, I use the regular one. I could use the second one if it was the only existing. But if the regular wikitool is much better - why would I not use it? I even did not find a window in the second version with the text that will be published, just parts of it splitten on different windows. Hope it helps. IKhitron (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@IKhitron Thanks for clarifying which versions you're talking about. Trying to get to the bottom of the problem, would you say the new version is inconvenient and unintuitive mainly because you don't see the whole text that will be published? If it's not "just" about that, could you describe a bit more? I know this has turned into a long thread, but your feedback could really help us here. So if you have the time, it would be of much help if you could describe where you have trouble and why (E.g. "I've just run into an edit conflict and I don't know how to select the changes I made before" or "I've made all the changes I want to keep, but I can't see the whole text that will be published").

Also, do you usually run into edit conflicts on talk pages or in articles?

Best,

Johanna Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

1. It's not "just" that, there are other issues.
2. I have some time, but I'm not sure I can describe it clearly better. It's just the whole experience, and it isn't usual for me, because regularly I like new features and use them with pleasure.
3. Both.

Maybe I can help you other way, Johanna. If it does not bother you, could you please describe me, in a nutshell, what points in the second version should make it better than the first one, and what problems does thay solve? If you could, I can give my feedback on each point, I think. Thank you very much. IKhitron (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@IKhitron Thanks a lot, I really appreciate this. So, we have this summary of the feedback we received on our first beta feature: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMDE_Technical_Wishes/Edit_Conflicts#Test_page_&_feedback_round

These were the points we tried to solve with the new approach. Does that help?

Best,

Johanna Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks!

Well:

1. It is hard to find own changes -> It was easy to me in the first version and hard to impossible in the second one.
2. It is not clear which column is going to be saved so it is hard to figure out which version I should edit -> It was clear in the first version and absolutely impossible in the second one.
3. It should be easier to merge conflicting changes -> I am not sure if it's about the whole process or the one specific point. If whole process, it's much harder now. If the specific point, it's the same as in the first version.
4. The selection of the base version is too complicated -> It was simple in the first version, and very frustrating in the second one. IKhitron (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@IKhitron Thank you for this. I'll take your feedback back to the rest of the team, and we might get in touch again if we have more questions. Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

I keep getting conflicted by myself.

After I figured out where to edit the text (my version, his version, the original one) and integratin' the conflict, saving brings me back to almost to original Conflict View. nothing is saved.

Editing again, brings me back to another Conflict View, very similar to the former. Editing + saving doesn't solve anything. It's a bug or a funny feature? :) Ruthven (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you on mobile or on desktop slow computer? IKhitron (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Desktop, relatively fast connection and computer. Eventually I went out of the loop, but I saved twice the same message. Ruthven (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Weird. IKhitron (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, sounds similar to a bug, we already fixed a month ago. Has this happened more than one time? Can you send us a screenshot (if it happens again). Also would be good if you can say us on what edit it was occurring and what browser (version) you are using. Thanks for reporting! Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)