The reply of the gnomesupport.org wiki maintainer. Basically says that
we should make up our mind -- and if we do move to our own wiki server,
he will most probably shut down the gnomesupport.org wiki completely.
Christian
Original-Nachricht
Betreff: Re: GnuCash pages on
Quoting Chris Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In the context of a gnucash wiki, I would apply these principles thusly:
a) One-click auto-revert and account/ip ban available to moderators;
web-form for readers to alert mods to presence of wiki-spam.
recently-modified lists; account-age
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:15:21PM -0500, Josh Sled wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 11:59 -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
b) Spectrum goes:
1) no user edits; only moderators edit/add new mods
2) same as 1) w/ webform for requesting write-access. (manual
approval)
3)
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:38:46PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
Now a question unrelated to my main point...
Assuming no account is needed to *read* content, what possible
incentive is there to create an account that has no edit privilege?
It lets me read under my own username? Is it a dirty
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:46:17PM -0500, Josh Sled wrote:
WRT the abuse-level threshold tuning... we need to choose a specific
mechanism, and I'm not going to spend time measuring the allowed and
prevented abuse fractional rates or whatever. Let's do one of these
two:
- account creation
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 15:59 -0500, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
Also, the focus tends toward the setting of the restriction-level
since that's viewed as a free-variable, but I want to re-emphasize
that lowering the cost of the corrective action is *really* important.
Any wiki should be read-only
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:55 -0500, Josh Sled wrote:
It sounds like the Trac-provided wiki isn't really working out, and
MediaWiki is (relateively) easy to setup, full-featured and well-known.
I say we try it out, and dereference gnomesupport.org.
If you search on the Firefox extension download
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:48:49PM +0100, Didier Vidal wrote:
Le mer 30/11/2005 à 22:43, Chris Shoemaker a écrit :
Yes, they are very good. However, I'm surprised there's no multi-page
admin roll-back. I mean, if the admin wants to roll-back a single
page why not (optionally) roll-back
