Pending Revisions conveys that publication is deferred, but not for what
reason.
Based on only the name it leaves a new editor guessing: maybe there is a
server delay and the matter will resolve itself in next twenty minutes?
Double Check or Revision Review tells clearly there is human interv
On 5/23/2010 8:40 PM, William Pietri wrote:
> On 05/23/2010 02:13 PM, David Levy wrote:
>> James Alexander wrote:
>>
>>> That is basically exactly how I see it, most times you "double check"
>>> something you are only the 2nd person because the first check is done by the
>>> original author. We
William Pietri wrote:
> I think insiders will adjust to any name we choose, as some of our
> existing names attest. So I think as long as the name isn't hideous or
> actively misleading, then my main criterion is how it comes across to
> novices. For them, I'd suspect most will take "double check"
On 05/23/2010 06:37 PM, David Levy wrote:
> And again, the main problem is ambiguity. "Double Check" can easily
> be interpreted to mean that two separate post-submission checks are
> occurring. It also is a chess term (and could be mistaken for a a
> reference to that concept).
>
I think in
William Pietri wrote:
> Allow me to quote the whole policy: "If a rule prevents you from
> improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That implies, in my view
> correctly, that the person editing is presumed to set out with the
> intention of making the encyclopedia better.
>
> I think that f
On 05/23/2010 02:13 PM, David Levy wrote:
> James Alexander wrote:
>
>> That is basically exactly how I see it, most times you "double check"
>> something you are only the 2nd person because the first check is done by the
>> original author. We assume good faith, we assume that they are putting
James Alexander wrote:
> That is basically exactly how I see it, most times you "double check"
> something you are only the 2nd person because the first check is done by the
> original author. We assume good faith, we assume that they are putting
> legitimate and correct information into the artic
Sorry, the correct page is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Terminology
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/lis
Alex wrote:
> Except unless we consider the initial edit to be the first check, its
> not correct. Only one person independent from the editor is reviewing
> each edit.
This is one of my main objections to the term.
The write-in candidate "Revision Review" appears to combine the best
elements of
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Alex wrote:
>
> Except unless we consider the initial edit to be the first check, its
> not correct. Only one person independent from the editor is reviewing
> each edit.
>
> --
> Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
>
>
That is basically exactly how I see it, most ti
On 23 May 2010 18:03, Pharos wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Philippe Beaudette
> wrote:
> > tbh, I'm very fond of "Double check". It seems to imply exactly what
> > we want: the edit isn't being accepted automatically, nor rejected,
> > but simply getting a second look. It's fairly
On 5/23/2010 1:58 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> tbh, I'm very fond of "Double check". It seems to imply exactly what
> we want: the edit isn't being accepted automatically, nor rejected,
> but simply getting a second look. It's fairly neutral in tone, and
> understandable to the average p
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:
> tbh, I'm very fond of "Double check". It seems to imply exactly what
> we want: the edit isn't being accepted automatically, nor rejected,
> but simply getting a second look. It's fairly neutral in tone, and
> understandable to the ave
tbh, I'm very fond of "Double check". It seems to imply exactly what
we want: the edit isn't being accepted automatically, nor rejected,
but simply getting a second look. It's fairly neutral in tone, and
understandable to the average person.
Philippe
(speaking in my capacity as a volunteer
I think "Pending Revisions" is an excellent name. No need to look
further.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> Contradiction aside, I think that what you've proven here is that
> under no circumstances should any engineer be permitted to name
> anything. We should institute this as a rule in Wikimedia development
> in general.
>
Oh why not? We end u
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 2:25 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> No, it really isn't a legitimate concern. It wasn't a legitimate concern
> when the "AbuseFilter" was enabled and every user had a public "abuse log".
> And with that feature came the ability to tag edits. We now mark edits with
> generally infla
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>>
>> Across the world the "Nobody is home" argument is quickly running out of
>>
>>> steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for
>>> its user's piracy, and blog owne
18 matches
Mail list logo
