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.

On 8/31/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thankfully you can explain them all for us in three words or less. "99.9% of people that use Wikipedia are readers" Uh, yeah. And...? And 3 percent of editors also read articles. And casual readers never become editors, do they?

Then I'm sure everyone else will follow your lead. Surely the "ten things" must have been done without consulting you, which of course resulted in the "problem" that was the "ten things" fiasco. :-\

OK. "Really bad idea" is... just as good as "pointless." 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

On 8/31/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: "...not something I see..." You could maybe try using your imagination? -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.