Gregory Maxwell wrote:
That kind of limitation was dropped from the community discussions
fairly early on as morphed from the More aggressive way of regulating
articles of flagged protection to the Less disruptive way of
protecting pages of flagged protection.
Limiting it to BLP articles
On 9 June 2010 11:13, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
On the gripping hand, limiting it to BLP's got a consensus.
Trying it on for a wider array of articles is really asking for
someone to punch you on the nose. Not recommended, but
hey, you can do it if you feel proud
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 9 June 2010 11:13, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
On the gripping hand, limiting it to BLP's got a consensus.
Trying it on for a wider array of articles is really asking for
someone to punch you
On 06/09/2010 12:39 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
Our current plan is to raise that limit gradually as the performance
implications become clear. If the community wants us to keep some hard
limit, that's also doable.
With the utmost of respect, what you
On 06/08/2010 01:32 PM, William Pietri wrote:
On 06/08/2010 01:08 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
Are there any technical limits beyond a page count? Can we - for
example - use it on talk pages or redirects?
I believe redirects should work, although when I went to double-check on
the
OK, what we have so far:
* Vandalism is bad.
* Oxygen is good.
* I like Jello.
I'm wondering if that'll get garbled in the editorial process.
( http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1993-03-16/ )
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
On 9 June 2010 18:26, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
However, your notion that a limit would reduce the potential for drama
is reasonable.
I'd agree with this. A limit - even if it's not technically needed -
which can be altered after a bedding-in period is a great idea, and
it's
On 06/09/2010 02:30 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
I'd agree with this. A limit - even if it's not technically needed -
which can be altered after a bedding-in period is a great idea, and
it's probably an improvement on the situation without one. If nothing
else, it avoids us being overambitious,
We expect a publicity storm around pending changes. Jay doesn't
currently plan to do a press release as such, but we're definitely
getting ready with talking point sheets and Q+As and a blog post and
etc. For obvious reasons, this is best drafted in public.
Journalists are ssimple creatures/s
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:19 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
We expect a publicity storm around pending changes. Jay doesn't
currently plan to do a press release as such, but we're definitely
getting ready with talking point sheets and Q+As and a blog post and
etc. For obvious
On 8 June 2010 20:19, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
This is what I have so far, off the top of my head:
Some of our pages are locked from *anyone* editing them. With this,
we can open those up so people can edit the draft version, which then
goes live. Should be on the order of
On 8 June 2010 20:24, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can tell the living people part isn't accurate.
O rly? New one on me. OK ...
Some of our pages are locked from *anyone* editing them. With this,
we can open those up so anyone can edit the draft version, which
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:27 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you :-)
Last sentence: We'll trial it by putting a small number of pages in
'pending changes' instead of locking them.
That's still grammatically awkward (= bad) and the obvious question
is, which pages?
Any pages
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
(Otherwise someone almost certainly would run a but to mass convert
every single semi-protected page)
Is that the new slang for unapproved bots? 8-)
--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
Thanks for doing this.
On 06/08/2010 12:19 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Some of our pages are locked from*anyone* editing them. With this,
we can open those up so people can edit the draft version, which then
goes live. Should be on the order of minutes, if it's over an hour
it's too slow. The
The Wikipedia's aim is to allow virtually anyone to be able to edit
any article. Towards that aim we're testing a scheme where certain
articles that may be locked are going to be opened up to editing.
Under the new scheme, editing by newer editors will have to be double
checked by experienced
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:48 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
[snip]
I do have a fear that reporters, who are embedded in institutions with
complicated review flows, will bring a lot of baggage to interpreting
this, and so will have notions and potential misunderstandings that are
On 8 June 2010 20:55, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
d) it only applies BLP articles
Can you identify the origin of this belief? It's not correct. If
there is some page still saying/implying this, we need
On 06/08/2010 12:57 PM, David Gerard wrote:
'Cos it was a big part of the plan in past iterations. It was news to
me that isn't a current part of the plan, for instance.
Regarding the BLP question, there's no technical limitation, but that's
different than the question of what the community
On 8 June 2010 21:07, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
Though limited to 2000 is useful.
Our current plan is to raise that limit gradually as the performance
implications become clear. If the community wants us to keep some hard
limit, that's also doable.
Are there any technical
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:57 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2010 20:55, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
d) it only applies BLP articles
Can you identify the origin of this belief? It's
On 06/08/2010 01:08 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
Are there any technical limits beyond a page count? Can we - for
example - use it on talk pages or redirects?
I think it's configured per namespace, so one technically could use it
for talk pages, but I believe the configuration we're planning
On 8 June 2010 21:32, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
I think it's configured per namespace, so one technically could use it
for talk pages, but I believe the configuration we're planning for
Wikipedia is just main space. Naturally, if the community clamored to
apply it elsewhere,
On 8 June 2010 21:34, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
No, I'm just wondering how quickly our 2,000 is going to get used up
with people playing with userpages ;-)
A coupla years ago we had 200 protected pages and 800 semi-protected
pages. What are current numbers?
(Having the
On 8 June 2010 22:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2010 21:34, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
No, I'm just wondering how quickly our 2,000 is going to get used up
with people playing with userpages ;-)
A coupla years ago we had 200 protected pages and 800
On 8 June 2010 17:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2010 21:34, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
No, I'm just wondering how quickly our 2,000 is going to get used up
with people playing with userpages ;-)
A coupla years ago we had 200 protected pages and 800
On 8 June 2010 22:18, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports you
will see some reports pertaining to long and indefinite protections. Some of
them are protected redirects and salted deleted articles so are irrelevant,
but it
On 8 June 2010 22:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
A coupla years ago we had 200 protected pages and 800 semi-protected
pages. What are current numbers?
In mainspace, a few thousand, all told, I think. Probably over our
2k limit but not by an order of magnitude.
(Having the
28 matches
Mail list logo
