On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Carl (CBM) wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> Consider the following edit sequence:
>>
>> A, B, C, D, E
>>
>> A is a previously approved version. B, and D are all excellent edits.
>> C and E are obvious vandalism. E even manag
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Consider the following edit sequence:
>
> A, B, C, D, E
>
> A is a previously approved version. B, and D are all excellent edits.
> C and E are obvious vandalism. E even managed to undo all the good
> changes of B,D while adding the van
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Imagine an article with many revisions and pending changes enabled:
> A, B, C, D, E, F, G...
[snip]
> I don't know how to fix this. We could remove the reject button to
> make it more clear that you use the normal editing functions (with
>
Imagine an article with many revisions and pending changes enabled:
A, B, C, D, E, F, G...
A is an approved edit. B,C,D,E,F,G are all pending edits.
B is horrible vandalism that the subsequent edits did not fix.
You are a reviewer, you go to review page by clicking a pending review
link. On the
