On 04/01, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > My guess, just as yours, would be the previous date to be correct. But
It's not a guess, I added all 49 of those "Added:" lines based on the wiki edit history. And I checked that one again before changing it. > (After all, the date change can be found in the history, so it would be > rather dumb to try to "fake" that for a supposedly higher position.) > However, you just had to stir up the ants... > > By obligating every plugin author to edit the wiki, and in this case > even move it back to the active plugin's page, you almost encouraged > them to revise the data and description. True. I've been trying to keep an eye on it. > FWIW, a simple ping, with a one-time pong to you acknowledging the > plugin's active status would have done, too. And caused much less work, > for both you and me. Also true. I'm sorry I created more work for you. Unfortunately, when I sent out that email, I assumed that all the listed contacts already had write access to the wiki. I didn't realize the policy had been different in the past. -- "Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first." - Mark Twain http://www.ChaosReigns.com
