https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Nemo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zhoris...@gmail.com
--- Comment #20 from Nemo
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Nemo changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugzilla.wikimedia.
|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Nemo changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugzilla.wikimedia.
|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Siebrand changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Ori Livneh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia. |o...@wikimedia.org
|org
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Ori Livneh changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #18 from Ori Livneh
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Steven Walling changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch-in-gerrit
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
--- Comment #17 from Steven Walling ---
(In reply to comment #16)
>
> I updated the patch again, going with Nemo's proposal of:
>
> - 'Allow all users' (unchanged)
> - 'Allow only users with "$1" permission' (was: 'Require "$1" permission')
>
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
--- Comment #16 from Ori Livneh ---
Copying Nemo's response to the previous patch here, for context:
> No way you can use "can edit": those messages are used also
> for move protection and even for other kinds of protections
> e.g. with Simple
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
--- Comment #15 from Ori Livneh ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > Yes I would prefer changing it everywhere where it is used, and it can be
> > done
> > as separate thing. We already have similar case for sysop -> Ad
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
--- Comment #14 from Nemo ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Yes I would prefer changing it everywhere where it is used, and it can be
> done
> as separate thing. We already have similar case for sysop -> Administrator so
> it is possible.
Split
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Nemo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||12549
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Nemo changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugzilla.wikimedia.
|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
--- Comment #13 from Niklas Laxström ---
Yes I would prefer changing it everywhere where it is used, and it can be done
as separate thing. We already have similar case for sysop -> Administrator so
it is possible.
--
You are receiving this ma
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
--- Comment #12 from Nemo ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Autoconfirmed is jargon and jargon should be avoided in the user interface
> messages.
To clarify, are you proposing to remove the name entirely from the interface?
(I agree it ideally
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
--- Comment #11 from Niklas Laxström ---
Autoconfirmed is jargon and jargon should be avoided in the user interface
messages.
"Established" in this context can have a specific (and documented) meaning, but
at least the users can get some idea
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
--- Comment #10 from Steven Walling ---
Let me put it this way: if you don't think most admins understand
autoconfirmed, you can in fact link to a description of the term. Established
is not a user right, and would require more documentation to
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
--- Comment #9 from MZMcBride ---
(In reply to comment #8)
>> I don't think "established users" is any more vague than "autoconfirmed". I'd
>> prefer that the limits be made explicit ("4 days, 10 edits") rather than
>> continuing to use meaning
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
--- Comment #8 from Steven Walling ---
> I don't think "established users" is any more vague than "autoconfirmed". I'd
prefer that the limits be made explicit ("4 days, 10 edits") rather than
continuing to use meaningless jargon such as "autoco
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
MZMcBride changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||b...@mzmcbride.com
--- Comment #7 from MZM
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
--- Comment #6 from Platonides ---
Except if you were manually added to the confirmed group. Or you somehow are an
admin before reaching the autoconfirmed status (eg. it's a new project).
Much less common, but shows that it's not a literal des
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Steven Walling changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||swall...@wikimedia.org
--- Comment #5
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
--- Comment #4 from Platonides ---
Nemo, I find it clear from the descrioption. There's the mixture of Allow and
Block, plus Administrators only with no verb (should it be allow or block?)
His suggestion is equivalent to your (2) option. Albei
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Ori Livneh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||o...@wikimedia.org
--- Comment #3 from Or
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Nemo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||federicol...@tiscali.it
Component|Inte
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
--- Comment #2 from Nemo ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I find that the protection level descriptions are confusing: "Allow all
> users"
> / "Block new and unregistered users" / "Administrators only".
>
> The first option allows, the second op
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Legoktm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||legoktm.wikipe...@gmail.com
--
You are rece
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43272
Platonides changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||platoni...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from
28 matches
Mail list logo
