2009/7/3 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
{{qif}} was being used massively, even if the majority of the community
didn't know about it (or care). It supported their work and allowed them
to do the things with templates that they needed in articles. I would
argue these complex templates came
2009/7/6 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/3 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
{{qif}} was being used massively, even if the majority of the community
didn't know about it (or care). It supported their work and allowed them
to do the things with templates that they needed in articles. I
2009/7/6 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Questionable. Since for fairly obvious reasons you can't let
wikipedians execute arbitrary code through templates there is always
going to be the problem of wikipedians useing workarounds that
generate problematical code.
ParserFunctions is already
2009/7/6 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Questionable. Since for fairly obvious reasons you can't let
wikipedians execute arbitrary code through templates there is always
going to be the problem of wikipedians useing workarounds that
generate problematical
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:29 AM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Getting back to the point attempts to highly optimize code to stay
within whatever the new equivalent of [[Wikipedia:Template_limits]]
would risk even a fairly clean language turning into something of a
mess.
Any reasonable
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Sorry, where I said AbuseFilter I meant to say FlaggedRevisions. I'm not
sure on how AbuseFilter came to be agreed on.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:59
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.comwrote:
On which wiki do you mean, for FlaggedRevs? For the English Wikipedia, my
understanding is that consensus was reached in favor of a limited trial
--
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:09:00 +0100
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: How do you fully consult the
community consensus?
To: Wikimedia Foundation
Sorry, where I said AbuseFilter I meant to say FlaggedRevisions. I'm not
sure on how AbuseFilter came to be agreed on.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Jennifer Riggs jri...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I'm curious. In your
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
snip
I really like the ParserFunctions example. Enabled with hardly any
discussion and now used 500,000 times on the English Wikipedia. It had a
major effect on Wikipedia that made it much harder to use. And now we are
stuck
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
snip
I really like the ParserFunctions example. Enabled with hardly any
discussion and now used 500,000 times on the English Wikipedia. It had a
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Robert Rohderaro...@gmail.com wrote:
(For the record, I'm referring to
the earliest history of ParserFunctions. I'm not sure about the
history of #expr and some of the later bits.)
#expr was present since the first commit (r13505).
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
I'd be interested to see your positive, assume-good-faith list of
suggestions.
One of my favorite suggestions, from Erik, is that we use IdeaTorrent (
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/ ) in order to provide a single place
13 matches
Mail list logo
