Hi,
I'd just like to revive the point made by Pelagic in the post that started
this thread. I was just now once again presented with this banner wording,
"Show the editors who bring you neutral and verified information that their
work matters."
I find this wording very offensive, as it implies
Hi,
I consider a bike to be an amazing transportation tool, yet I haven't biked
for months because it is not appropriate to how I commute. I am not sure
invalidating someone's opinion based on its edit count is a good way to
have that discussion .
All the statistics I have ever seen on Visual
But the statistics we are talking about are from 2016 not 2006... And I
think this is good point as I rember similar discussion in Polish Wikipedia
when strong supporterts of Visual were found actually not using it on
regular basis. Answering the question why you are personally not using it
It would be awesome if this list could either have basic moderation and/or
an option to opt out of threads.
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 23:37, Chris Keating
wrote:
> I think it would be great if this sub-thread could come to an end and we
> could stop having the list clogged up with questions about
I think it would be great if this sub-thread could come to an end and we
could stop having the list clogged up with questions about one person's
editing history.
Also, I can't quite remember the list policy on people who are blocked from
one or more Wikipedias for disruptive behaviour
The simple answer to a simple question is that I created my User:Seddon
volunteer account in 2006 and Visual Editor was first made available to
users seven and a half years later.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 12:03, Dan Garry (Deskana) wrote:
> Please let us avoid using misleading statistics to make a point.
>
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 14:02, Dan Garry (Deskana)
wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 12:38, Demian wrote:
>
>> [...], but to be exact, I was looking to understand why
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 12:38, Demian wrote:
> I'm assuming this points to the namespace of the edits, although it's not
> clear. It's unfortunate that Visual Editor can only be used in mainspace, I
> wish that wasn't the case, but to be exact, I was looking to understand why
> only 2.8% (47 out
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 11:32, Joseph Seddon wrote:
> I believe the nature of the edits speak for themselves.
>
> Seddon
>
I'm assuming this points to the namespace of the edits, although it's not
clear. It's unfortunate that Visual Editor can only be used in mainspace, I
wish that wasn't the
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 05:55, Demian wrote:
> With these different aspects in mind I wonder why you find the Visual
> Editor a dream to use, given that on average at most 4 in 500 of your
> edits
>
I believe the nature of the edits speak for themselves.
Seddon
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:55 AM Demian wrote:
> Hey Seddon,
>
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 16:23, Joseph Seddon wrote:
>
>> Short answer: I don't think it's a cynical lie. I think that the
>> donations our donors give do results in
Hey Seddon,
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 16:23, Joseph Seddon wrote:
> Short answer: I don't think it's a cynical lie. I think that the donations
> our donors give do results in benefits to the community, even if they
> aren't transactional or tangible things. We definitely don't want to give
> any
Short answer: I don't think it's a cynical lie. I think that the donations
our donors give do results in benefits to the community, even if they
aren't transactional or tangible things. We definitely don't want to give
any misleading impression that the benefits are tangible so we will look
into
[ Cross-posted from
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Donations_-_show_the_editors_you_care%3F
]
I had the misfortune of visiting Wikipedia logged-out the other day, and was
struck by the large size of the donation banner, and the odd wording of the
appeal. (Something about awkward
14 matches
Mail list logo
