Board Thread:Technical Updates/@comment-24006128-20200319160218/@comment-1807002-20200324185857

Although I am very appreciative to Himmalerin for setting us up with a non js source editor work-a-round, I do hope this doesn't mean: staff won't make it a viable option. I have almost always been only source editor and even when trying to see or edit on other editors to try to help those who do not use source editor it's slower and buggy (many times in the past- with UCP I can't say). So having source editor on js seems rather odd and retrogressive IMO.

I am (and this doesn't make me any better nor more important than other users- it is just to let staff know my editing style (which may be an editing style they might want to consider in the UCP)) a high count editor. Quick example just to express the gravity of edits 90k+ in a wiki that I have had only 10 months (and over 10k edits on another wiki earlier this year) but with mass edit, mass rename, mass categorization. To give an idea even without mass editors, mass categorization, I have in the past I still have done 10k edits in a month (mostly helpful, some me fixing my own mistakes and some just in my sandbox testing templates and styles). I am one that has made and edit just to realize I made and error and have to go right back in and fix. And with js source editor it would take me more than twice as long (I'd be ripping my hair out). This (js source) would not help me be a better editor by making smarter edits if that is an angle you'd try to sell me- it would more likely make me slow down or stop my efforts all together.

I just would prefer to not worry about a convoluted way of disabling js on my browser and/or scripts (I am not good with js scripts) and css- just to edit on what is suppose to be an improved platform. And if I had to I might find myself another why did we bother to upgrade/change it back types because well slower more difficult editing does come across as retrogressive.