Subramanya Sastry schreef op 2015/06/20 om 10:49:
On 06/20/2015 11:45 AM, Arlo Breault wrote:
On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
There may be more - I'm still looking for these.
I was reading the discussion on gradually enabling VE for new accounts
[3] and
Kww writes
Cristian Consonni schreef op 2015/04/08 om 3:00:
2015-04-05 17:31 GMT+02:00 Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com:
Things that come to my mind:
*range blocks become impossible, and its impossible to tell if vandals are
using near by ips
*cant do a whois on the ip to see if its a library or something
I hereby nominate collections. Describes it well and, at least to my
ear, helps convey a bit of the notion that it's a personal thing.
KWW
Risker schreef op 2015/04/04 om 8:08:
Hi Jon -
These look interesting, and I'm sure some people will enjoy them a lot.
From my perspective as a
Risker schreef op 2015/03/20 om 5:46:
Nonetheless, if you were trying to illustrate that there are communication
benefits in having an easily read flow of discussion, I don't think anyone
is disagreeing with you about that, and simplification of the indentation
system/process would be desirable
Danny Horn schreef op 2015/03/17 om 21:08:
And I'm glad to hear that this thread has come close to almost inspiring
optimism. That's what I'm here for.
In a sample of one. Still, I guess one finds solace where one can.
KWW
___
Wikitech-l mailing
Nick Wilson (Quiddity) schreef op 2015/03/16 om 19:03:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
How about just converting those threads back to Wikitext, instead? That
script already exists, I've seen it used on Mediawiki. Will it mess up the
pages that have already
Erik Moeller schreef op 2015/03/17 om 1:39:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote:
There doesn't seem to be any particular user demand to adopt Flow,
so there's no reason to believe it will gain any more traction than LQT ever
did
Nick Wilson (Quiddity) schreef op 2015/03/16 om 17:51:
LiquidThreads (LQT) has not been well-supported in a long time. Flow
is in active development, and more real-world use-cases will help
focus attention on the higher-priority features that are needed. To
that end, LQT pages at mediawiki.org
Chris Steipp schreef op 2015/03/10 om 7:23:
Jacob Applebaum made another remark about editing Wikipedia via tor this
morning. Since it's been a couple months since the last tor bashing thread,
I wanted to throw out a slightly more modest proposal to see what people
think.
The easiest way to
Chris Steipp schreef op 2015/03/10 om 9:00:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Kevin Wayne Williams
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote:
Chris Steipp schreef op 2015/03/10 om 7:23:
Jacob Applebaum made another remark about editing Wikipedia via tor this
morning. Since it's been a couple months
Max Semenik schreef op 2015/01/09 om 16:41:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote:
Not sure where to reply to a top-post to a bottom posted thread, so I will
shoot for the middle and hope people can keep track of this knot. Your
counterexample
Brian Wolff schreef op 2015/01/09 om 15:17:
I think its important to separate two types of social media interaction:
*allowing people to post their favourite article (share this links)
*meta level interaction (stuff about the community)
Nobody objects to the second afaik. The first is like
of
inexperienced editors and we wind up semi-protecting the article to keep
them from damaging it.
KWW
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote:
Brian Wolff schreef op 2015/01/09 om 15:17:
I think its important to separate two types of social
Derric Atzrott schreef op 2014/11/13 8:42:
Indeed - I am somewhat surprised by James's firm opposition.
I tend to agree with James on this one in that if the edit summaries
are to be modified then they need a revision history.
I don't know if they need an edit history per se. A log of
Jon Robson schreef op 2014/11/13 10:59:
I think this is a great idea and has always baffled me that you can't.
I'm also a little confused by James comment. Maintaining an edit
history of edit summaries seems overkill. As I understand it edit
summaries are for aiding other editors.
If we are
Jeroen De Dauw schreef op 2014/11/09 0:29:
Hey,
I suspect it isn't done because it isn't a very good way to modify a
complex embedded base of software, Lila. Generally, when modifying a
complex embedded base, one designs first, iterates implementation and
internal testing, and then releases a
I suspect it isn't done because it isn't a very good way to modify a
complex embedded base of software, Lila. Generally, when modifying a
complex embedded base, one designs first, iterates implementation and
internal testing, and then releases a relatively complete piece of
functionality.
Bryan Davis schreef op 2014/10/02 8:46:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams
kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com wrote:
Focusing on what signature we can obtain from (or plant on) the device and
how to make that signature available to and manageable by admins is the key.
I used to do
Marc A. Pelletier schreef op 2014/10/02 18:39:
On 10/02/2014 09:07 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
Anybody that risks death by editing Wikipedia is an idiot: no privacy
system is secure enough and no information is important enough to make
that a reasonable decision.
I wouldn't have put
Derric Atzrott schreef op 2014/09/30 6:08:
Hello everyone,
[snip]
There must be a way that we can allow users to work from Tor.
[snip more]
I think the first step is to work harder to block devices, not IP
addresses. One jerk with a cell phone cycles through so many IP
addresses so quickly in
Ryan Kaldari schreef op 2014/09/01 22:59:
- *it* *doesn't* *scale* (constantly seeing a (3) or new emails pop up
if you're active in ~6 discussions is a pain)
OK, so how do you suggest changing it?
- _nothing_ on-wiki ever warrants an urgent reaction ever
All the community members who
21 matches
Mail list logo
