Page history
12 September 2009
→Common sense proposal
+8
→Common sense proposal: added link
m+61
→Editor's powers
m−3
::But in all seriousness I think it much more precise and constructive, to label specific statements using tags or quotes, rather than labeling editors. ~~~~
+209
→Editor's powers
m+2
→Editor's powers: ::*'''Edit conflicts:''' Posting a rough draft fast, then making corrections to an article someone else is likely to be trying to edit, which cause them edit conflicts. (May or m
+260
Lumeniki could become somewhat like Encyclopediadramatica, Wikitruth, WikiLeaks or "worse" in any sense.
+1
→This page will likely be copied to [[Lumeniki]]
+30
→Common sense proposal: the REAL common sense proposal
+2,000
→Enforcement against editors
+9
→Common sense proposal
+373
→Enforcement against editors: ''Edit sparring:''' Some wikis consider it "edit warring" and baaaad to undo edits. [Since no so few are interested in policy development] Lumenos suggest Wikipedias
+119
→Enforcement against editors: But the real etiquette page is here. Dilley has edited the etiquette guideline now]. You could perhaps edit that one, but it is more o
+386
→Common sense proposal: afterthought
+53
→Enforcement against editors: ::(Note, if I were labeling Lumenos, I'd probably go with more tradition labels such as: paranoid, delusional, arrogant fumbling buffoon, etc. :-) I luvz the wikis ca
+328
Common sense proposal
+558
no edit summary
m+1
MarkDilley seems to be the only active bureaucrat around here. He has spoken recently in the block policy proposal, claiming to support "SoftSecurity".
+59
→Enforcement against editors: added pointy edits, labels, and ordered more according to seeming "offensiveness" or "forcefulness" level
+1,125
→Enforcement against editors: thanks for the spelling correction Huw
+3
→Enforcement against editors: updated my misconception
−324
11 September 2009
10 September 2009
→How sympathetic or critical? (Who decides?)
+149
→Verifiability
m+87
→How sympathetic or critical? (Who decides?)
+128
→How sympathetic or critical? (Who decides?)
+112
→How sympathetic or critical? (Who decides?): no moar fregan lolercoasters please, I feel dizzy
+377
→Examples
−127
→Examples
+77
→Examples
+167
→Examples: Are you apposed to facts{{fact}}?
+269
→Examples: I object to the abuse of my posts to justify your silly ideas
+279
→Examples
+111
→Examples: I do mind
+101
→Examples
+305
→Examples: would you please stop moving my comments around?
+362
→Verifiability
+451
→Biographical info: possibly appropriate quote
+116
9 September 2009
→Enforcement against editors
+179
→Enforcement against editors
m+83
→Enforcement against editors: moved questions, etc to area about "protecting pages"
+234
→Enforcement against editors: woop one more spilling eror
m−1
→Enforcement against editors: spelling correction there
mHe seems to favor protecting pages rather than blocking users. Now I see that this is much more effective, because some editors will simply create more user names and get more IP addresses, when they
+759
→Enforcement against editors: others welcome to add questions
−22
→Enforcement against editors: made "neutral" "He did warn/suggest this to editors but I didn't come across any instructions for how editors may have avoided this or when/why it was going to happen.
+136
Dilley has now given us a way of ''predicting'' when he might do this, but I don't know the purpose of doing this, or what we have to do to get the article pages unlocked.
+425
→Enforcement against editors
m+5
(changed opening sentence) ...claiming to support "SoftSecurity". One might put this in the context of his recent decision to move some wiki articles to talk pages.
+178
no edit summary
+55