On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
By the way, I'm assuming that some edits will be of the sort I would
normally remove the material and start a talk page discussion. In
that case, is the right thing to do to approve the edit and then
remove the
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
Can you reject with a let's discuss on the talk page? What I am
thinking is that some people use edit summaries to alert other editors
to a talk page discussion, and if this is not possible with the
FlaggedRevs
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Rob Lanphier ro...@robla.net wrote:
snip
Not quite. This is what a whiteboard is really handy for :) I'm guessing
you may have a slightly incorrect way of thinking about how the feature
works, and that's causing some confusing in cases like this.
I think I
On 5/21/10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
now need to try typing the title of the longest article (which was
mentioned somewhere recently) to see if that will break the new gizmo.
:-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_word_in_English ;-)
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
On 5/21/10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
now need to try typing the title of the longest article (which was
mentioned somewhere recently) to see if that will break the new gizmo.
:-)
On 22 May 2010 02:15, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Pending edits might describe the edits, but not the regime or tool.
Delayed editing is one possible option for the tool. As in, Delayed
editing has been applied to this article. Doesn't imply any kind of
checking or approval, nor censorship
On 22 May 2010 22:20, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm not sure where this has come from, but there is no problem. An
edit by an autoreviewer will only be automatically flagged if the
previous version
On 22 May 2010 22:32, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled
by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I probably have it all wrong,
I don't think I've seen the word autoreviewer tossed about in any
other context. I was
Oh, I should've figured that one out on my own. Continue on.
Emily
On May 22, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 22 May 2010 22:32, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled
by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2010 22:00, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote:
I suspect that any action by an autoconfirmed user will automatically
accept something of any actions not yet reviewed. Will those
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 22 May 2010 22:32, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled
by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I probably have it all wrong,
I don't
Due to numerous requests we have extended the submission deadline for
Wikimania 2010 as follows:
* Abstract Registration: May 24, 11.59 p.m. (Pacific Time)
* Notification for workshops: May 29, 11.59 p.m. (Pacific Time)
* Notification for panels, tutorials, presentations: June 3, 11.59
p.m.
I think you have the terminology right but that is something we
probably want to change if we can.. if we keep using autoreviewer
as a statement there it is going to confuse a lot of people on En
who have seen autoreview as a very different thing for a while now.
Ya know, I was just
There was no general consensus for what people though they were voting
for, nor is there any sure way to predict what they will now say,
since a great many of the practical details have only been clarified
in the last few days upon seeing the implementation.
Now that we actually have a proposal,
On 23 May 2010 03:05, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
There was no general consensus for what people though they were voting
for, nor is there any sure way to predict what they will now say,
since a great many of the practical details have only been clarified
in the last few days
15 matches
Mail list logo
