* improper hatnotes (WP:HAT - hey, my protologism is official terminology! ;)

They did no such thing.

Wikipedian eyeballs putting that kind of thing in anon notice is pointless and if you start adding rubbish to the top of the screen for logged in users there will be resistance and rightfuly so.

On 8/31/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ah, thank you Geni for that concise, but detailed explanation.

Next time, you can just boil it down to "pointless rubbish" and save your fingers the trouble. No doubt it bothers you to have to respond to such "pointless rubbish" at all, so why get CTS while doing it? Thanks again so much for your opinion.

Details are tricky

But note the edit summery (sic)

Nyet. I would regard anything not of immediate significant global importance (24 hour database lock coming up that kind of thing) placed in sitenotice to be a problem.

This does not mean it would be pointless just a really bad idea.

Placing what you suggested in anon notice would be largely pointless since > the things you list are not really the kind of things non editors want to work on.

There is a difference between adding content and house keeping. While anons can and do fix spellings[,] stylistic issues and hatnotes are not something I see them dealing with much.

On , stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thats right. We have to keep them separated. Wikipedia is never edited > by anons (http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia ) nor is > there enough work for them to do, nor are they to be trusted with > editing content anyway. > > Should I go on? > -stevertigo

I don't like the idea of sticking editing specific links in the anon notice. The "10 things..." list is a handy page that readers might find interesting/informative. We need to remember that most people that use Wikipedia are readers, not editors, so we shouldn't necessarily impose links about something they could care less about on them. On 8/31/07, stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello list, > I like the fact that people (by one means or another) agreed on using > the banner space for something other than the fund drive (there is > already a permanent link in the interaction sidebox, no?). Then > things is an interesting usage for that valuable bulletin space. > > But I don't think its the best usage. A better usage would be for > mobjobs; fix-it tasks which would effectively serve double duty as > reminders (or first time notices) of some basic process and policy, > focusing on particular problems or aspects. These can be minor items > that need lots of eyeballs to correct on a large scale. My favorite > peeves are: > * the misuse of external links in the body of articles, > * improper hatnotes (WP:HAT - hey, my protologism is official terminology! > ;) > * self refs in-body/outside-of-parenthesis. 'For more information,' etc.