I've found it very difficult to test out the VE because so much of what I
do involves, one way or another, templates (which don't work yet in VE).
Manipulating anything to do with a source, for example, is out. Adding tags
to an article is out. Infoboxes are out. And so forth. I suspect once
templa
I tried it for typos, very slow and it worked on one article and kept
trying to vandalise another. But when I edit I like to have Firefox's
spellchecker to red underline possible typos, and this doesn't support that.
I worry about the loss of section editing in the visual editor. Aside from
being
On 13 May 2013 05:38, Steve Bennett wrote:
> As I think I commented elsewhere, the lack of references is a deal
> breaker for me, even for testing. A couple of times already I started
> making an edit with the VE, then went to add a reference...and hard to
> start over in the "source" editor.
I
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:43 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> This is all the Visual Editor edits in en:wp:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&tagfilter=visualeditor
>
> It's not many. So please switch it on (you can still click "Edit
> source" to do references and templ
On 11 May 2013 22:08, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> Mmmm... so I know that it's the English Wikipedia mailing list, but I
> suppose that this won't hurt:
> In the Hebrew Wikipedia several people tried the VisualEditor. I
> counted seven newly reported bugs as a result of this, and one
> reopened. Ther
2013/5/11 David Gerard :
> This is all the Visual Editor edits in en:wp:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&tagfilter=visualeditor
>
> It's not many. So please switch it on (you can still click "Edit
> source" to do references and templates) and give it a good kick
This is all the Visual Editor edits in en:wp:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&tagfilter=visualeditor
It's not many. So please switch it on (you can still click "Edit
source" to do references and templates) and give it a good kicking. A
bug discovered now saves end
On Wednesday, October 12, 2011, Thomas Morton wrote:
> All of the portraits on http://parliament.uk are copyright to
> http://dods.co.uk/
>
> It has always been in the back of my mind to approach them and ask about
> relicensing with a free license (long shot, but maybe...).
>
I can't remember wh
On 11 October 2011 16:41, David Gerard wrote:
> ... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
Aaaand, an article I created long ago has been AFDed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/XScreenSaver
The material to save it exists, but isn't in the article as yet
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> I came across the idea of "cigarette card" collections of portraits on
> [[List of legendary kings of Scotland]], and here it is again, earlier and
> in another form.
There is a long and venerable history of such collections of portraits
On 11 October 2011 16:41, David Gerard wrote:
> ... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
>
>
> [[Jacobus Verheiden]] turned out to be much more rewarding than it promised
to, when I just had a name. Spinoff from [[List of participants in the Synod
of Dort]], which is a tough piece of
All of the portraits on http://parliament.uk are copyright to
http://dods.co.uk/
It has always been in the back of my mind to approach them and ask about
relicensing with a free license (long shot, but maybe...).
Currently the images are licensed as freely usable with a non-commercial
clause, whi
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> We need photos of all of them. You could take to requesting
> free-licenced photos ...
I shan't commit to that today, but I shall certainly consider it.
I haven't done anything like that before. This...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/C
On 12 October 2011 10:49, Bod Notbod wrote:
> I have set myself the task of reading every article on current sitting
> UK MPs (whilst also keeping bookmarks of stuff to read after that,
> such as party articles or those on MPs not now sitting but that are
> names recognisable to me). 2012 is goin
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:37 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Pretty much what I've been doing of late - just proofreading as I graze.
I have set myself the task of reading every article on current sitting
UK MPs (whilst also keeping bookmarks of stuff to read after that,
such as party articles or tho
On 12 October 2011 10:26, Bod Notbod wrote:
> I have mainly been reading articles and making minor edits, generally
> to little errors such as no space after punctuation or where someone
> has accidentally repeated words or phrases. I suspect there's a gadget
> out there that would do this much m
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:41 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> ... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
I like this question ;O)
For my part I have been considering my actions during time spent on
Wikipedia and actually adding content to articles has gone by the
wayside!
I have mainly bee
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:41 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> ... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
>
>
> - d.
>
>
Mostly cogent notices on talk pages, hoping that years from now somebody
with more in-subject expertice will address those concerns. Eventualism isn't
fun but it gets there
If you're into mythology/cryptozoology, I did some translation from Old
Norse and Old Icelandic this summer to put together what is probably the
most complete syntheses (in any language) of [[Hafgufa]] and [[Lyngbakr]],
two legendary sea monsters.
Bob
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Fred Bauder
> ... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
>
>
> - d.
Well, yes,
I discovered the answer to the mystery of why Mao adopted Stalinism and
put it into History of the People's Republic of China (19491976)
A lot of people have wondered where he got those ideas. Turns out they
came from
David Gerard wrote:
> ... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
>
>
> - d.
I assume you're addressing this to those still able to do so. I, for my
part, am beavering away on Commons trying to sort out the mess that is
[[Category:Rivers of England]]. Category maintenance seems to be s
... written anything good on the encyclopedia lately?
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 10/1/09, Michael Peel wrote:
>
>> Is there much difference between the way a new (redlink) account is
>> treated, and an IP account is treated? Perhaps using the former would
>> give an indication to how the latter is treated? I tend to treat both
>> as equally suspi
stevertigo wrote:>
>> PPCD:
>> - and "unfogiveable" only entered
>> +and "unforgiveable" only entered
The Cunctator wrote:
> Your edits have been submitted for review.
If it comes down to it, you can cuncate them without rejecting them
entirely. That is, if the software allows that. Vaporware I
On 10/1/09, Michael Peel wrote:
> Is there much difference between the way a new (redlink) account is
> treated, and an IP account is treated? Perhaps using the former would
> give an indication to how the latter is treated? I tend to treat both
> as equally suspicious when I spot an edit by th
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell :
>
>
>> Quality is just the default.
>> "Draft"(unflagged) "Checked" "Reviewed", perhaps?
>>
>
>
> I suspect it's actually important to get this right first time - on
> en:wp, policy formation is by someone making up a makeshift apparatus
> o
On 1 Oct 2009, at 03:33, Steve Bennett wrote:
> The thing that puts me off most, personally, is that the IP is
> recorded and published. I wouldn't really care if there was some other
> way to identify anonymous users, but raw IPs? Ick.
Is there much difference between the way a new (redlink) acc
On 9/30/09, David Gerard wrote:
> Again, I reiterate that all experienced editors should try editing as
> an IP for a while. See how well our propaganda matches the way we
The thing that puts me off most, personally, is that the IP is
recorded and published. I wouldn't really care if there was
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell :
> (I think established users forget how annoying becoming autoconfirmed
> is— you have to wake a week and make a bunch of edits to non-semied
> pages. This is pretty obnoxious when you just want to correct a simple
> error on a single article)
^^^ This.
Again, I reit
Do we really need these different grades of reviewedness?
Could I also suggest that the entire background colour of a page
change to indicate what status you're looking at. Or maybe have a
border around the page when you're looking at a reviewed version, and
no border if you're not.
I feel the ne
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell :
> Quality is just the default.
> "Draft"(unflagged) "Checked" "Reviewed", perhaps?
I suspect it's actually important to get this right first time - on
en:wp, policy formation is by someone making up a makeshift apparatus
off the top of their head, then later editors a
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> >
> > If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
> > position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
> >
> >
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> UI fail.
>>
>> There is no reason for you to know or care that your edit isn't being
>> displayed to the general public. It's being displayed to you, it's
>> being displayed to all the other editors, it's be
David Goodman wrote:
> If enWikipedia has only 4,000 active editors, and we don't do better
> at this than, we are going to keep up with only a very few articles.
> The plan will work , though, for the most watched articles,
> fortunately where they are needed, because that's the ones where
> peopl
2009/9/29 Risker :
> 2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell
>> The place where the comparison to NPP falls short is that NPP doesn't
>> *do* anything, except coordinate with other people using the
>> feature and people don't use it because it doesn't do anything
>>
>>
>
> To me, as someone who periodical
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> The process can and should be made mostly invisible to casual editors.
>
> Like I said, you don't want the process to be 'invisible'
> to casual editors, you want it to be *transparently open*.
Is it poss
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
>> position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
>>
>> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Gra
2009/9/29 Gregory Maxwell
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Goodman
> wrote:
> > The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot
> > of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the
> > bottom of the list after a month and consequently that we n
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot
> of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the
> bottom of the list after a month and consequently that we no longer
The place where the comparis
The comparisons being made to NPP are interesting, because I see a lot
of the problems NPP does not pick up--the articles which drop off the
bottom of the list after a month and consequently that we no longer
keep track of, the absolutely lousy articles people often pass over
without notice, or wit
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Surreptitiousness
wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>
>> This is another area where the UI can have a real impact: It's
>> important the it not overstate the level of review that is occurring.
>> Right now flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org is calling the levels
>> "D
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> This is another area where the UI can have a real impact: It's
> important the it not overstate the level of review that is occurring.
> Right now flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org is calling the levels
> "Draft" "Checked" and "quality", but this is under active discussion.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
> position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
>
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
> - check the history.
2009/9/29 Surreptitiousness :
> Couple of points I want to raise. I was wondering if this system will
> make another Siegenthaller incident more or less likely. My
> understanding is that the flagged revs is only to prevent obvious
> vandalism, it isn't set up so that each addition has to be verif
stevertigo wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 5% of edits taking more that FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE HOURS EIGHT
>> MINUTES AND FIFTY FIVE SECONDS?! That is unforgivable, even with every
>> article included. They either have too strict criteria for sighting so
>> too many people say "Oh, I'm
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
- check the history. I'm not an
2009/9/27 stevertigo :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> But RC-patrol and review flagging are very similar and can both be
>> done by endless slogging.
>
> Slogging is slogging. Slogging is not editing.
I disagree, but I don't see the relevance anyway. Whether you consider
anti-vandalism efforts to be e
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> But RC-patrol and review flagging are very similar and can both be
> done by endless slogging.
Slogging is slogging. Slogging is not editing.
>> I just understand that there are better ways to do "it," (whatever
>> that means), ways to do "it" better, and ways to do a bett
2009/9/27 stevertigo :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> While people are, of course, free to choose what to work
>> on, that is a fundamental part of the way Wikipedia works, it makes
>> sense to encourage people to work in a particular way.
>
> Well there are several different types of things that peopl
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> While people are, of course, free to choose what to work
> on, that is a fundamental part of the way Wikipedia works, it makes
> sense to encourage people to work in a particular way.
Well there are several different types of things that people do, and
the ones that require
2009/9/27 Andrew Gray :
> and the conclusion I meant to add: patrolling will, potentially, be
> able to supplant "RC patrol" as we know it now; because
> patrolled-revisions is basically a tool for avoiding RC duplication
> and for making revision-management easier. It will probably end up
> about
2009/9/27 Andrew Gray :
> 2009/9/27 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> There may be an issue with only having some pages under the review
>> system - we will need to split effort between RC-patrol and
>> ORP-patrol. Hopefully that will happen organically, but we will need
>> to keep an eye on it. It is possible
2009/9/27 Thomas Dalton :
> There may be an issue with only having some pages under the review
> system - we will need to split effort between RC-patrol and
> ORP-patrol. Hopefully that will happen organically, but we will need
> to keep an eye on it. It is possible that having all articles under
2009/9/27 Steve Bennett :
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
>> keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
>> minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
> keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
> minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
> backlog builds up and it takes
2009/9/27 stevertigo :
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> I disagree. I don't see why notability should be a factor.
>
> Notability might be the wrong word. 'Degree of interest' is perhaps
> the more accurate term. No interest = no page views = no checks
> for... topical completeness, bland writing, wande
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I disagree. I don't see why notability should be a factor.
Notability might be the wrong word. 'Degree of interest' is perhaps
the more accurate term. No interest = no page views = no checks
for... topical completeness, bland writing, wandering organization,
politicized em
2009/9/27 Thomas Dalton :
>> You'd think so, but that's not what the german statistics say- the
>> anonymous still edit at about the same rate.
>
> Do we know how many anonymous editors made more than one edit anyway?
> Perhaps most of the people that made multiple edits registered after
> the firs
2009/9/27 Ian Woollard :
> On 26/09/2009, David Gerard wrote:
>> de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
>> enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
>> editing dead.
>
> You'd think so, but that's not what the german statistics say- the
> anonymous
On 26/09/2009, David Gerard wrote:
> de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
> enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
> editing dead.
You'd think so, but that's not what the german statistics say- the
anonymous still edit at about the same rate.
2009/9/26 stevertigo :
> The fact of the matter was then, remains so, and will remain so, that
> some articles are just not as notable, and therefore won't get seen
> and won't get checked on anyone's schedule.** There is no issue of
> "unforgivability' involved at all, even if we can say that ther
Your edits have been submitted for review.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, stevertigo wrote:
> PPCD:
>
> stevertigo wrote:
>
> - and "unfogiveable" only entered
> +and "unforgiveable" only entered
>
> - but from a practical need to focus on people that can write editorials,
> +but from a logic
PPCD:
stevertigo wrote:
- and "unfogiveable" only entered
+and "unforgiveable" only entered
- but from a practical need to focus on people that can write editorials,
+but from a logical need to focus on people that can write editorials,
-a logical limitation on the usage of the "unacceptabilit
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 5% of edits taking more that FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE HOURS EIGHT
> MINUTES AND FIFTY FIVE SECONDS?! That is unforgivable, even with every
> article included. They either have too strict criteria for sighting so
> too many people say "Oh, I'm not sure/don't have time to
2009/9/26 David Gerard :
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Markierungsstatistik
>
> Those numbers would be a disaster. This I think is why the trial is so
> limited.
5% of edits taking more that FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE HOURS EIGHT
MINUTES AND FIFTY FIVE SECONDS?! That is unforgivable, e
2009/9/26 The Cunctator :
> The problem is that one of the fundamental rules of interactive design is
> that anything less than real time feedback is profoundly disorienting. To
> some degree that can be ameliorated if once someone submitted a flagged
> revision some kind of counter appears immedia
>
>
> (We need New Page patrollers to make sure
> every new page gets its first review very quickly - they are usually
> good at keeping on top of new pages.)
>
> _
>
Given that New Page Patrol is constantly at a backlog of between 27-30 days
(that is, there are always a significant number of n
2009/9/26 David Gerard :
> de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
> enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
> editing dead.
Doesn't dewiki have an installed-everywhere version of flagged
revisions, though? That's almost a million article pages -
The problem is that one of the fundamental rules of interactive design is
that anything less than real time feedback is profoundly disorienting. To
some degree that can be ameliorated if once someone submitted a flagged
revision some kind of counter appears immediately that lets them know their
rev
2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/9/26 David Gerard :
>> de:wp manages about one third in the first hour. That's really not
>> enough unless there's sone urgent need to stop Wikipedia newbie
>> editing dead.
> No, IMO they have failed. It should be literally 100% of edits reviews
> in 5 minutes th
2009/9/26 David Gerard :
> 2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
>> keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
>> minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
>> backlog builds up and it ta
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/9/26 David Gerard :
> > If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
> > position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
> >
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Gra
I've just been looking at these statistics:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:ValidationStatistics
The median time for review is nice and small, but the average is lot
higher and the average lag is even higher - that means there are a
small number of reviews taking far too long (in fact, about
2009/9/26 Thomas Dalton :
> I think we should have flagged revs for as many articles as we can
> keep up-to-date with. If it takes more than 5 minutes (preferably 1
> minute) to review an edit (except for occasional times when somehow a
> backlog builds up and it takes a few minutes for people to
2009/9/26 David Gerard :
> If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
> position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
> - check the history. I'm not an admin or reviewer on e
David Gerard wrote:
> What did it feel like? Curiously unsatisfying. The fix not going live
> immediately left me wondering just when it would - five minutes/? An
> hour? A day? It felt nothing like editing a wiki - it felt like I'd
> submitted a form to a completely opaque bureaucracy for review
Yes, I sincerely hope that we don't use it more than we use protection
now. That's the promise we've all been making outside the community
for a long time, I don't think we should prove the reporters right. :)
Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion
_
On 26/09/2009, David Gerard wrote:
> If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
> position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
> - check the history. I'm not an admin or re
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Geelong_win_2009_Australian_Football_League_Grand_Final
- check the history. I'm not an admin or reviewer on en:wn.
What did it feel like? Cur
One issue that's bugged me for awhile wrt flagged revisions is whether
we'll have a problem with people saying that [[m:The Wrong Version]]
is still flagged, and theirs hasn't yet been. Granted, if this
becomes an issue, it can be easily enough solved by flagging the
current version (and, if neces
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:06:45 -0500, Keegan Paul wrote:
> In my opinion, nothing. In any societal construct, 10% do the management,
> 30% does the other work, and 60% come an go as they please. In a way, it is
> for the best since you actually get care an concern rather than forced
> labor.
Do t
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
>>> Yeah, it's all imperfect. What I mean is, that's a bit of process for
>>> a particular purpose, and if we need it with flagged revs as we do
>>> with full protection, then we can reintroduce it when we do. I think
>>> the lack of visible rew
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
> > the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on
> > new contributors.
>
> What can we do about that?
>
> Emily
In my opinion, nothing. In any societal construct, 10% do the management,
30% does the other work, and 60%
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:52:48 +0100 (BST), Andrew Turvey wrote:
> See [[Wikipedia:Reviewers]] for more information.
Not to be confused with Wikipedia Review, of course.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: h
> the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on
> new contributors.
What can we do about that?
Emily
On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:08 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
> contributors.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>
son
-Original Message-
From: David Goodman
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, Aug 28, 2009 7:08 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] So, what is the deal with flagged revisions?
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
contributors.
David Goodma
the lack of visible reward will have the same effect on them as on new
contributors.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton :
>> 2009/8/28 David Gerard :
>
>>> Protection is a failure
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/8/28 David Gerard :
>> Protection is a failure of the wiki model in the first place.
>> Discussion is a poor substitute for editing.
> Edit warring is a failure of the wiki model. We use protection to
> force people into a discussion model which works better in th
2009/8/27 Anthony :
> Can someone explain how that works from a technical standpoint? If an
> article is flag-protected and has no reviewed version, what shows up to IP
> users?
It was the most recent version when I originally studied the
extension. That could have changed, though.
_
2009/8/28 David Gerard :
> 2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton :
>
>> The standard rule is that even admins aren't supposed to edit
>> protected pages. They are meant to stay as they are while people
>> discuss. I don't see the benefit to full-flagged protection over full
>> regular protection. It might be use
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Andrew Turvey <
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> - "Anthony" wrote:
> > From: "Anthony"
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Andrew Turvey <
> andrewrtur...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > 5) Are you supposed to "check" an entire article prior to fl
2009/8/28 Thomas Dalton :
> The standard rule is that even admins aren't supposed to edit
> protected pages. They are meant to stay as they are while people
> discuss. I don't see the benefit to full-flagged protection over full
> regular protection. It might be useful for things like widely used
2009/8/27 David Gerard :
> 2009/8/27 Apoc 2400 :
>
>> There is also the new full-flagged-protection where instead of using
>> {{editprotected}} you can edit the draft and wait for an admin to flag. I
>> don't know if this will actually be used very often, since it doesn't really
>> stop edit wars.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:37 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> I think it'll remove a lot of the reward for aggressive stupidity not
> having the stupidity show up on the live site in real time.
Oh, interesting point. Imagine a page gets flag-checked every sunday.
On monday, what would be the point of ed
As I thought the poll was, we were approving a trial limited in all
respects to BLP only. We were also discussing a trial on one thing,
not a simultaneous trial of several different proposals. in trying to
see how a complicated new routine works, we should be testing either
flagged revision or patr
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey :
> - "Andrew Gray" wrote:
>>
>> The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned.
>
> I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find
> that?
I can't find anywhere in the trial pages that mentions BLPs at all,
other than BLP being one of the p
2009/8/27 Andrew Turvey :
> - "Andrew Gray" wrote:
>>
>> The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned.
>
> I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find
> that?
Inference ;-)
"Thus, it is proposed to enable patrolled revisions, which uses a
passive flag that re
- "Andrew Gray" wrote:
>
> The all-BLPs idea seems to have been abandoned.
I can't find anywhere in the trial pages saying this - where did you find that?
If true, it's interesting. We'll see if after the trial the idea of all-BLPs is
resurrected - I'm sure there'll be people out there w
- "Carcharoth" wrote:
> > Members of the user group "Reviewer". All Admins will automatically be
> > given reviewer status and all other users will be able to apply for it at
> > [[WP:Request for permissions]]; like rollback there will be a presumed
> > threshold of number of edits and ti
> The idea is that full protection can be slowly deprecated and any
> page at all can be open to improvement by anyone.
Okay, but what about edit wars, and other cases of "Well, it isn't
*really* vandalism, but people are distracting themselves from being
constructive here."? I envision a fu
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
